Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Slum Clearance (Shelter Estimate)

Mr. Idris Owen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he took account of the estimate of Shelter Organisation, a copy of which is in his possession, that slum clearance will take 204 years, in formulating his own estimate that all slums in England and Wales can be cleared within 10 years.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): All relevant information available was taken into account.

Mr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question was asked in good faith but that it has since been ascertained from Shelter that this was a public relations exercise and more of a joke than a fact?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that any Question put down by my hon. Friend was asked in good faith. I thought that there was a public relations aspect to the Shelter campaign, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be many corporation houses in this country empty in a very short period of time for many reasons, not least among them that people are finding it hard to pay the rent, and that there is dual and sometimes treble occupancy taking place once again in some areas?

Mr. Amery: The rebate system which we are introducing under the Housing Finance Bill, the Second Reading of which was accepted the other day, will correct that position.

British Rail (Financial Aid)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received from the Chairman of the British Railways Board for greater financial aid and support, the absence of which would result in rail closures; what total subsidy is being given by the Government in 1971–72 and for what length of railway routes; what estimate he has made for 1972–73; and whether he will make a policy statement on rail closures.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): None, Sir. Grant in 1971–72 will be about £58 million for unremunerative rail passenger services on 8,450 route miles. No estimate can yet be given for 1972–73.

Sir G. Nabarro: In cases in which there is no social grant and British Rail announce their intentions to close, will my right hon. Friend consider selling or leasing these railway lines to appropriate private companies, under light railway orders, in order that the services may be continued? Would he espouse denationalization—more Thomas Cooks—and condemn more Giros, which are anathema to Tories like myself?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to follow him into Giro, but I will content myself today with saying that if he makes a proposal to me I will look at it most carefully.

Mr. Maclennan: Would the Minister give an assurance that at this time of high unemployment he will look with a favourable eye upon proposals to extend the uneconomic railway social grant and bring forward no proposals for closures of the lines in the North of Scotland particularly, both in view of their likely employment factor and of the need to develop the economies of those parts of the country?

Mr. Peyton: I am aware of the considerations raised by the hon. Gentleman. I could not give quite the blanket undertaking for which he asks, but I assure him that the needs of the North of


Scotland in particular are constantly borne in mind and treated with the utmost consideration.

Mr. Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the views of all those Conservative Members who sought to harry the previous Labour Government on the need to preserve branch lines running through their constituencies?

Mr. Peyton: I had no idea that any Conservative Members ever harried the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Roger White: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications he has now received from the British Railways Board for additional infrastructure grants for the London and south-east network; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: I regularly receive such applications. £40 million of infrastructure grant has already been committed this year to British Railways Board projects.

Mr. White: Following the announcement of the Borough Market project recently, it was also stated that train services in the South-East—in Kent in particular—would be subject to delay during the construction period. Can I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the discomforture to passenger services will be minimal, since already both passengers and services are at breaking point?

Mr. Peyton: I am very conscious of the discomfort endured by commuters day after day, which was one of the reasons which led the Government to back the Borough Market project. I assure my hon. Friend that the Chairman of the Railways Board is also sharply aware of these problems and will do his best to minimise the inevitable inconvenience.

Mr. Spearing: But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that priorities for expenditure are also a matter of responsibility to this House? Does he recall that when I asked him in correspondence what priority was being given to various schemes, he said that it was only schemes which were presented by the Railways Board which he could consider? When I asked the Board to inform me of the whole range of schemes it had in mind,

it said that it was not prepared to let me have them. Would he look into this?

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has grounds for discontent. If I can remove them, I will.

Captain Elliot: Commuter services generally have done very badly in recent years in respect of capital expenditure compared with inter-city services. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and see whether he can facilitate increased expenditure on these lines, which carry many millions of passengers?

Mr. Peyton: I am not sure what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "recent years". I do not think that he can be referring to the last year.

Motor Vehicles (Pollution)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now intends to introduce regulations to reduce lead emissions from petrol; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes further legislation to control motor vehicle exhaust pollution.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I will be making an announcement in the near future of what further controls over atmospheric pollution by motor vehicles I consider necessary. I am paying particularly close attention to the use of lead additives in fuel.

Mrs. Butler: As lead in petrol is now recognised as a serious and growing health hazard in cities, would the Minister indicate whether he is considering the possibility of legislation to compel petroleum companies to make an effective reduction in lead content? Nothing else could be significant in reducing this pollution.

Mr. Walker: I must ask the hon. Lady to await my announcement over the total position. I am not certain whether the proposals I would make would need legislation or could be done by order. I ask the hon. Lady to wait until the final discussions are concluded.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend take seriously the report in the


Evening Standard yesterday about the alarming increase of lead in the atmosphere? Following from that, would he expedite legislation in this matter, because increasingly our overseas motor markets, such as United States and, perhaps, in future, Europe, will demand that engines are able to cope with low octane ratings?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Chief Medical Officer has stated that it is important that lead content in the atmosphere does not increase. I am well aware of this advice and I shall be taking the appropriate action.

Teesside Parkway

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to announce the decision on objections to the Teesside Parkway which was the subject of a public inquiry at Middlesbrough earlier this year.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My right hon. Friend has today approved Teesside County Borough Council's compulsory purchase order for land for the Parkway as recommended by the inspector following the public inquiry.

Mr. Tinn: I genuinely thank the Minister for that reply, particularly because a great deal of advance work is waiting on this decision, for which application will be made to his Department and which I hope will receive similar expedition.

Tree Planting Year

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will sponsor a national tree planting year in 1973, following his promise to consider this suggestion in reply to a supplementary Question by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, on 28th July. 1971.

Mr. Peter Walker: I very much wish to encourage amenity tree planting, particularly in view of the losses from Dutch elm disease. I am considering what form of local or national campaigns would be of the greatest assistance, including the possibility of a tree planting year in 1973.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. The purpose of the exercise is to plant trees where they are needed in towns and

cities. Under my modest plan there would be no cost to local planning authorities other than the cost of earmarking and preparing the land in towns and cities for the planting of trees donated by families, individuals, organisations, trade unions and other societies.

Mr. Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign he has launched. Cities which have already encouraged similar tree-planting campaigns in urban areas have achieved considerable success and have made a considerable impact upon the quality of the environment.

Mr. David Clark: Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in an effort to persuade him to allow some financial help to the Forestry Commission for environmental planning?

Mr. Walker: The Forestry Commission plays a considerable rôle in helping with the landscaping of motorways, which is now of a very high order. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

General Improvement Areas

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have designated general improvement areas; and if he will give details of the number of areas per local authority and the number of householders involved.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Yes, Sir. As the Answer contains a large number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McCrindle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The indications are that considerable progress has been made in this respect. I suggest that it would be advantageous to draw to the attention of local authorities the considerable powers that exist under Section 75 of the 1969 Act and that, particularly in general improvement areas, greater impetus be given by the Government to local authorities to take these steps.

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says and agree with him. Two hundred and thirty-six general improvement areas have now been declared. In the past 10 months, 123 have been


declared, compared with 113 in the previous 14 months.

Following is the information:


GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS DECLARED IN ENGLAND UP TO 31ST OCTOBER, 1971



Areas
Number of dwellings


Northern Region




Ashington U.D.C.
1
94


Berwick upon Tweed B.C.
1
318


Crook and Willington U.D.C.
2
219


Darlington C.B.C.
1
233


Flaxton R.D.C.
1
40


Gateshead C.B.C.
3
352


Hartlepool C.B.C.
1
222


Newcastle upon Tyne C.B.C.
5
991


Prudhoe U.D.C.
1
70


Seaton Valley U.D.C.
6
1,244


Spennymoor U.D.C.
1
123


Stanley U.D.C.
2
217


Stockton R.D.C.
1
36


Teesside C.B.C.
2
1,405


Thirsk R.D.C.
1
23


Wallsend B.C.
1
385


Washington U.D.C.
4
1,084


Workington B.C.
1
119


Yorkshire and Humberside Region




Aireborough U.D.C.
1
125


Baildon U.D.C.
1
54


Bingley U.D.C.
1
355


Bradford C.B.C.
2
2,296


Doncaster C.B.C.
1
178


Grimsby R.D.C.
1
255


Halifax C.B.C.
1
223


Hebden Royd U.D.C.
1
140


Hemsworth R.D.C.
1
13


Huddersfield C.B.C.
1
221


Keighley B.C.
1
533


Leeds C.B.C.
1
352


Penistone R.D.C.
1
15


Pontefract B.C.
1
220


Rotherham R.D.C.
1
355


Scunthorpe B.C.
1
1,062


Sowerby Bridge U.D.C.
1
81


Spenborough B.C.
1
190


Swinton U.D.C.
1
206


Todmorden B.C.
3
326


Wetherby R.D.C.
1
27


North West Region




Atherton U.D.C.
1
1,238


Audenshaw U.D.C.
1
150


Barrow-in-Furness C.B.C.
1
756


Blackburn C.B.C.
2
254


Bolton C.B.C.
1
254


Bury C.B.C.
1
200


Cheadle and Gatley U.D.C.
3
191


Ellesmere Port B.C.
1
214


Heywood B.C.
1
338


Irlam U.D.C.
1
164


Kirkby U.D.C.
1
296


Lancaster B.C.
2
467


Leigh B.C.
1
352


Liverpool C.B.C.
2
2,106


Langdendale U.D.C.
1
95


Manchester C.B.C.
3
648


Nelson B.C.
1
99


Oldham C.B.C.
1
142






Areas
Number of dwellings


Preston C.B.C.
1
31


Preston R.D.C.
1
300


Prestwich B.C.
1
105


Rochdale C.B.C.
1
320


Royton U.D.C.
2
268


St. Helens C.B.C.
1
267


Skelmersdale and Holland U.D.C.
1
219


Stockport C.B.C.
3
808


Stretford B.C.
1
70


Warrington C.B.C.
1
368


Whiston R.D.C.
1
60


Whitworth U.D.C.
1
244


East Midlands Region




Alfreton U.D.C.
1
296


Basford R.D.C.
1
149


Bolsover U.D.C.
1
87


Carlton U.D.C.
1
251


Clowne R.D.C.
1
160


Derby C.B.C.
2
618


Heaton U.D.C.
1
72


Hinckley U.D.C.
1
50


Kettering B.C.
1
338


Leicester C.B.C.
1
1,752


Lincoln C.B.C.
1
300


Loughborough B.C.
1
479


Mansfield B.C.
1
290


Newark B.C.
1
183


Northampton C.B.C.
1
296


Nottingham C.B.C.
1
485


Sleaford U.D.C.
1
46


West Bridgford U.D.C.
1
364


Worksop B.C.
1
309


West Midlands Region




Atherstone R.D.C.
1
216


Birmingham C.B.C.
7
4,050


Dawley U.D.C.
1
20


Droitwich B.C.
1
302


Halesowen B.C.
1
220


Leamington Spa B.C.
1
308


Redditch U.D.C.
1
64


Shrewsbury B.C.
1
535


Stock-on-Trent C.B.C.
3
812


Warley C.B.C.
1
191


Wolverhampton C.B.C.
2
555


South East Region and East Anglia




Aldershot B.C.
1
253


Bedford B.C.
1
648


Bournemouth C.B.C.
1
472


Brighton C.B.C.
1
406


Cambridge B.C.
1
268


Chatham B.C.
1
216


Chelmsford B.C.
1
140


Gillingham B.C.
1
160


Gosport B.C.
1
633


Guildfort B.C.
1
584


Hastings C.B.C.
1
111


Huntingdon and Godmanchester B.C.
1
158


Kempston U.D.C.
1
631


New Forest R.D.C.
1
24


Northfleet U.D.C.
2
387


Norwich C.B.C.
2
1,491


Peterborough B.C.
2
557


Portsmouth C.B.C.
2
744


Reading C.B.C.
1
568







Areas
Number of 


Sittingbourne and Milton U.D.C.
1
92


Southampton C.B.C.
1
537


Thetford B.C.
1
19


Thurrock U.D.C.
1
536


Tunbridge Wells B.C.
1
307


Walsingham R.D.C.
1
201


Winchester B.C.
1
375


Working U.D.C.
1
103


Greater London—London Boroughs




Barking
2
666


Brent
2
663


Camden
8
1,309


Enfield
1
578


Greenwich
1
488


Hackney
1
363


Hammersmith
1
409


Haringey
4
3,388


Hounslow
1
127


Kensington and Chelsea
1
265


Kingston upon Thames
1
148


Lewisham
2
452


Waltham Forest
1
536


Wandsworth
1
720


Westminster
2
511


South West Region




Bath C.B.C.
2
1,223


Bristol C.B.C.
3
198


Exeter C.B.C.
1
219


Gloucester C.B.C.
1
263


Holsworthy R.D.C.
1
17


Plymouth C.B.C.
2
410


Swindon B.C.
1
172


Torbay C.B.C.
1
243


Trowbridge U.D.C.
1
157


Wells R.D.C.
1
10

Voluntary Housing Movement

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the safeguards he will guarantee for the voluntary housing movement in his housing revenue proposals.

Mr. Channon: The provisions in the Housing Finance Bill will in total considerably increase the amount of money available to the voluntary housing movement. There are also provisions to mitigate special financial difficulties which may occur for individual associations.

Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I hope that he will note that there is still some anxiety that it will become more difficult to start a new housing association. We all accept that large and substantial associations are

needed, but we should not try to stop the formation of new housing associations.

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. During the passage of the Housing Finance Bill I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter, and either my right hon. Friend or I will be able to outline in detail the safeguards for housing associations.

Mr. Crosland: The Under-Secretary keeps giving very reassuring answers on this point, but is he aware that, as the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) said, many sections of the voluntary housing movement have expressed the greatest possible anxiety about the effects of the new Bill, particularly the newer and younger societies? Will the hon. Gentleman underline what he has just said and state categorically that when we discuss this matter in Committee he will take these anxieties into account?

Mr. Channon: I have told the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion that varying views have been expressed by the voluntary housing movement about these proposals. I am anxious to reach the point at which we can discuss the proposals in detail in Committee, and I am sure that at that stage we shall be able to allay some of the anxieties.

Housing Register

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the Shelter Organisation's recommendation in Shelter Paper No. 2, a copy of which is in his possession, that local authorities should maintain a housing register containing details of all properties within each local authority's boundaries.

Mr. Channon: I read this paper with interest but do not believe that a housing register would be the best answer to the problems outlined.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that 200,000 houses a year are still becoming unfit? This suggestion by Shelter might be a contribution to tackling this problem and anticipating houses becoming unfit.

Mr. Channon: I will certainly consider again what my hon. Friend says. There are immense practical difficulties about


a housing register. As regards the other suggestions made in the Shelter Paper, local authorities largely have the powers. I hope that the new slum clearance subsidy will be a considerable help to local authorities in dealing with their slum problems.

Mr. Freeson: I agree that local authorities have the powers, but does not the Question ask by implication that the Minister should encourage local authorities to act? Should not effective housing advisory centres take this suggestion aboard as a central part of their activity? The idea is to have a central register, particularly in areas of stress.

Mr. Channon: That is a sensible idea. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that great progress is being made with the creation of housing aid centres, which can provide a very useful service in this and many other matters.

Derelict Land

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider applying the 80 per cent. grant for restoration of derelict land to all areas whether development, intermediate or not.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. The Government intend to maintaitn the present differential rates of 85 per cent. grant in the development areas, 75 per cent. in the intermediate and derelict land clearance areas and 50 per cent. elsewhere.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a very disappointing reply to the people of Bolton and many parts of Lancashire which are not development areas and not intermediate areas but which have a large amount of dereliction? Is not one dark Satanic mill as bad as another, whether it is in a development area or not?

Mr. Page: No. We must give preferential treatment to the development areas. This acknowledges their considerable economic problem. The response from local authorities in the derelict land areas to the 75 per cent. grant is encouraging.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this general subject was last raised in the House the Secretary of State for the Environment implied that those of us who wished these differentials

to be extended to the greater Manchester area did not care about areas of high unemployment? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Manchester is an area not only of very bad problems of this nature but also of high unemployment? To deal with both of these problems, will the hon. Gentleman now extend these grants and facilities to the Manchester area?

Mr. Page: The 75 per cent. grant applies to a very broad band right across from East to West in the North and the Midlands. At 75 per cent. it is a very generous grant and local authorities in the poorer areas, by means of the rate support grant, bring it up to about 85 per cent.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there not a lack of logic in the way my hon. Friend is approaching this? Do not the special areas have extra inducements to attract industry from elsewhere? In this case, the dereliction is fixed. The dereliction does not move from these areas, so the aid that is given should run equally all along the band.

Mr. Page: The development areas have economic problems which the others do not. We must maintain this differential.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in the reclamation of derelict land; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Page: Local authorities in the priority areas are making encouraging progress. The estimated gross expenditure on schemes approved for grant in England during the first six months of the current financial year was £3·3 million. This is more than the amount approved during the whole of 1969–70.

Mr. Dormand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that despite the generous Exchequer grant, far too many local authorities are not taking advantage of it? Will he consider killing two birds with one stone by increasing the grant to 100 per cent. in areas of high unemployment, so speeding up reclamation and at the same time creating sorely needed jobs?

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman can give me the names of any local authorities which are not responding, I shall be happy to look into the matter. I think


it would defeat the object if we were to increase the grant to 100 per cent. In fact, although the poorer areas receive 80 per cent., with rate support grant it already runs up to 95 per cent.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Hunt Committee emphasised that not only investment incentives but environmental criteria militated against industrial areas adjacent to intermediate and development areas? Will he look again at the question of providing better rates for the improvement of derelict land for industrial regions such as wool textile districts which face a serious problem in this matter?

Mr. Page: We are looking into the problems of the textile areas now to see whether an adjustment can be made in the description of "derelict land" in those areas.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the hon. Gentle-reconsider having a 100 per cent. grant, particularly in respect of the special development areas, in which we have a massive unemployment problem? Is he aware that the 15 per cent. that remains for local authorities to find is often the breaking point—particularly in view of his right hon. Friend's generous offer of another £130 million of loan sanction to encourage local authorities to go deeper and deeper into debt?

Mr. Page: The figures show that the grants are having their effect at the percentages at which they now stand. The amount cleared in 1969 was 2,500 acres and by 1970 it had gone up to over 3,500 acres, which means that local authorities are responding.

A66 (Penrith-West Cumberland)

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the date of the opening of the public inquiry into the proposed development of the A66 from Penrith to West Cumberland.

Mr. Graham Page: I have now arranged for the inquiry to be opened in Penrith on Tuesday, 25th January, 1972.

Dr. Cunningham: I welcome that reply. Why has it taken so long to

arrange for this inquiry, bearing in mind the importance of this project to West Cumberland? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there have been no objections to the section of the road west of Cockermouth? If that is so, why has not the go-ahead been given for this part of the road, not only to speed the project but also to provide much-needed employment in Cumberland this winter?

Mr. Page: I do not think that there has been any substantial delay. The Press announcement of an inquiry was made in September by my right hon. Friend. It was necessary to carry out the statutory procedures and to collect all the objections. We have fixed the inquiry as soon as it can possibly be managed. The inquiry must make its results known and my right hon. Friend must consider them before we can start work on the road.

Foulness

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the meetings which have taken place between his Department and groups desirous of developing facilities at Foulness.

Mr. Peter Walker: Meetings have been held with the Thames Aeroport Group and the Thames Estuary Development Company to find out more about their proposals. The discussions have been exploratory and imply no Government commitment to these organisations or to the ideas which they put forward.

Mr. Douglas: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to give an unequivocal assurance that the Government will not support port development at Foulness with adjacent industrial development which would militate against the expansion of port development in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: No. I cannot give that assurance. We are, however, studying the full regional planning aspects of the varying types of development that could take place at Foulness, and until we have completed our inquiries, which are taking into consideration all the environmental and planning aspects, we cannot announce what form our decision will take.

Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet some of the people who believe that they can still house-train aeroplanes and make them decent to live with near to our big cities, thus obviating the need for the expensive pouring of concrete over large areas of the east coast of the country?

Mr. Walker: I am always pleased to meet my hon. Friend.

Mr. Crosland: This is a serious matter. Will the Minister bear in mind that opposition to Foulness—not only local opposition but that from informed quarters—is still very strong indeed? While recognising that he is in the midst of the planning stage, may we have an assurance that when this planning stage in his Department is concluded, he will be willing to have a last reconsideration of whether the case for Foulness still stands, and will he let the House have a final opportunity of discussing the issue?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The case for Foulness certainly stands. The factors have not altered since we debated the subject and there is no doubt of the need for a third London Airport. The site chosen is, I am sure, the best site in environmental and regional terms.

Peak District National Park

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the lack of public access to the moors in the Peak District National Park in the vicinity of Meltham.

Mr. Graham Page: I have received rep-representations about the lack of public access in the vicinity of Meltham from four local organisations and two individuals.

Mr. Clark: Is the Minister aware that for centuries the public have had access to these moors within the National Park but now find that in this age of increasing leisure, by means of fences and signs they are being prohibited from having access? Will the hon. Gentleman consider making an access order for this piece of moorland?

Mr. Page: It is difficult for me to talk about the merits of this case because it may go to my right hon. Friend on appeal. The Peak District National Park

Planning Board expects shortly to advertise and to submit to my right hon. Friend under the statutory procedures a map showing the extent of public access in the National Park, and my right hon. Friend will consider any representations that may be made about that map. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is the stage at which representations should be made.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this stretch of land is some of the best walking country in these islands and that it would be a tragedy if it were to be enclosed, thus stopping literally thousands of people from enjoying these areas, for the benefit of a comparatively few who want to poop off guns?

Mr. Page: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not answer the case on its merits. My right hon. Friend is in a quasi judicial capacity, although he gave an undertaking when answering Questions recently that he would consider this overall question of access to parks. He has considered it with the N.F.U. and the Country Landowners' Association, and the Countryside Commission is considering the results of that consultation.

House Building

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the public sector; and how they compare with a similar period for 1970.

Mr. Amery: In Great Britain 104,134 permanent dwellings were started in the public sector in the period January to September, 1971, and 116,310 were completed. This compares with 117,897 starts and 131,634 completions in the same period last year.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that these figures are a total disgrace and look very sad indeed against the claim we used to hear about the Conservatives clearing the slums within ten years? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the boast he made in Manchester in the summer of 1969, when he urged local authorities to abandon council house building? Is he aware that 225,000 construction workers are on the dole and that when the new Housing


Finance Bill has been in operation for two or three years even these figures will look like paradise?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman should beware of overstating his case. The figures which will be published at the end of the week will, I think, show a welcome rise in public sector building resulting from the understanding by local authorities of the White Paper and the Bill.

Mr. Crosland: Whatever next week's figures may show, is it not a fact that these figures are serious enough without there being any need to overstate them? Is it not the case that there are over 100,000 unemployed construction workers? In the light of that, is it not remarkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, when detailing his plans for increases in public expenditure, made no mention of council house building? Will the right hon. Gentleman press on the Chancellor that as part of this programme of increased public expenditure there should be an emergency programme for increasing council house building?

Mr. Amery: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there was uncertainty in the minds of many local authorities until the publication of the White Paper on the reform of housing finance and the publication of the Bill. The figures which will be published at the end of this week will, I am sure, show a welcome increase in public sector building, and this in itself is encouraging.

Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite table a similar Question every month—[interruption.]—or certainly at regular intervals, in an effort to prove that private enterprise housing does not clear slums just as effectively as council house building? Is it not better to build houses where they are wanted rather than according to dogmatic beliefs?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend has put the matter into perspective.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in asking the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of the figures he has just given and of the army of 125,000 building workers who are unemployed, now to request local authorities

to launch a crash programme of house building? I admit that it takes time to plan a house, but could they not be asked to bring forward their existing programmes by six months?

Mr. Amery: As I ventured to tell the House at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate on the Housing Finance Bill, I have written to all local authorities asking them to let me have the latest estimates of their slum problems and of how they can possibly bring forward their necessary action.

Pollution Offences (Statutory Penalties)

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his review of the statutory penalties for all pollution offences.

Mr. Peter Walker: Soon, Sir.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he press ahead with his encouragement and ensure that the penalties are really tough and are a genuine deterrent?

Mr. Walker: Most serious offences will be liable to trial on indictment and in such cases the courts can often impose fines without limit or terms of imprisonment. Maximum fines on summary conviction will be increased substantially. The new scales will, I am sure, provide real deterrence to offenders.

Compensation

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a Green Paper with proposals for amending the law on compensation.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think a Green Paper would be the most appropriate way to announce our intentions when we have completed our review.

Mr. Lane: Will my hon. Friend reconsider that reply? We all realise how complex the issue is and how full his hands and those of his colleagues are at the moment, but there is great public impatience. Could he try to publish proposals before Easter, in whatever form?

Mr. Page: We have already consulted very widely—perhaps too widely for speed in making our decisions. I think


that it is right that we should publish our decisions quite definitely, and then there will be plenty of scope for discussing them.

Mr. Crawshaw: Despite the good work done by the Labour Government's legislation for giving compensation in these cases, there are certain anomalies in that one house which is the subject of such an order may get full compensation while the house next door may get only site value. Would it not be more equitable to assess this on a sliding scale so that there is not a sharp division between the house that gets full compensation and the one that gets nothing?

Mr. Page: That is the sort of thing we have considered in the review, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the results.

Environmental Control (International Co-operation)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations his Department has had with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on methods of international co-operation on environmental control matters; and what is his policy towards the purpose and form of international agreements in this field.

Mr. Peter Walker: My Department is represented in several groups arranged by O.E.C.D. to pool information and ideas about protection of the environment and in particular the economics of control of pollution. I strongly favour international agreements where a part of the environment common to several countries is involved or where sources of pollution, such as vehicles, are articles of international trade.

Mr. Jones: While recognising the worldwide desirability of standards, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that it would be more rewarding to concentrate the United Kingdom efforts nearer home in Europe rather than widely on the international scene?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am much in favour of trying to get regional agreements on pollution, particularly pollution of the North Sea, river pollution and so on, and I think that we can make more speedy progress on a regional basis.

Sir G. de Freitas: In view of the great success of the Council of Europe's European Conservation Year two years ago, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of what he said, working more closely with the Council of Europe, which, after all, is limited to this part of the world?

Mr. Walker: We work with a number of European bodies. I am anxious to avoid unnecessary duplication, and I think that we can do so while continuing such co-operation.

Child Pedestrian Casualties

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in casualty figures for children has occurred since the introduction of the Green Cross Code.

Mr. Peyton: In the period May to August child pedestrian casualties fell by 1,070 or 7·3 per cent. compared with last year. This was achieved at a time when the general trend is upwards.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the many sincere doubts and reservations expressed at the time of the introduction of the Green Cross Code, would my right hon. Friend consider giving these figures the widest possible publicity?

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's help in doing just that. I should like on his behalf and, I am sure, on behalf of the House, to say a word of appreciation to all those who put this code into effect. It produced some quite striking results.

Seat Belts

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the result of Government encoragement of the voluntary use of seat belts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): After the recent publicity campaign in the north-east the proportion of front seat car occupants wearing seat belts was about 28 per cent.—double the level before the campaign.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are not intent on bringing in legislation to make this compulsory? Could we


be assured that they will continue their campaign to get the voluntary wearing of seat belts, in order to reduce the number of deaths in car crashes?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would always prefer to persuade rather than compel.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the great loss of life avoided by the wearing of seat belts, will the hon. Gentleman suggest to all Members of the House of Commons that they should set a good example by wearing seat belts whenever they take their cars on the road?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Bus Licensing

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has held with the bus industry regarding his proposals for the modification of the bus licensing system.

Mr. Peyton: I have had useful discussions with both sides of the industry.

Mr. Fox: Will my right hon. Friend remember in these consultations that many bus operators are not represented by the organisations he has consulted and that many of them have great sympathy with the modifications he is proposing?

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. I have seen one or two of the independent operators, outside the associations, who have expressed views similar to those he has just put.

Use Classes Order

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the Use Classes Order so that planning permission would be required for a change of use from a shop to a restaurant or café.

Mr. Graham Page: Representations to this effiect have been considered and discussions have taken place with interested organisations; we hope soon to reach conclusions which will be incorporated in an order.

Mr. Worsley: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the discussions on this subject have been going on for a very

long time, under both the previous Government and this Government? Can he give an undertaking that a decision will be reached by the end of this year?

Mr. Page: I hope it will. I appreciate that the discussions have been going on for a long time. The matter is tied up with the revisions of the General Development Order, and we do not want to make piecemeal announcements about these reforms.

Mr. Bob Brown: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). The discussions have been interminable. Will the hon. Gentleman make a decision rapidly, otherwise I shall have more chop suey shops than bus shelters in my constituency?

Mr. Page: I would not say that the discussions have been interminable. We have had consultations with the local authority associations and with the trade, and I hope that we shall come to a decision soon.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I do not dissent from the thought underlying this Question, but will my hon. Friend make it clear that the mere amendment of the Use Classes Order would not automatically make an application for planning permission obligatory, which, following a long line of decisions in the Court of Appeal, would be a matter of fact and degree in the circumstances of each case.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. What he said merely shows how many consultations one must have on these difficult problems.

Moped Riders (Accidents)

Mr. Fidler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of fatal and serious injuries to motor cyclists during the past year has involved moped riders.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: About one-tenth.

Mr. Fidler: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the serious nature of the statistics he has just given and consider whether any further regulation is necessary to ensure that those who are relatively inexperienced—that is, moped riders—do not constitute a continuing and growing danger?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. Mopeds generally are less dangerous for their riders than are motor cycles, but my hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State's proposals will include the compulsory wearing of helmets by both motor cycle and moped riders.

Transport Vehicles (Security of Loads)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to increase the measures of enforceability which exist with regard to the security of loads carried by transport vehicles in Great Britain.

Mr. Peyton: I am having a Code of Practice on Safe Loading prepared in consultation with industry.

Mrs. Oppenheim: That is a very helpful reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a mother and child who were constitutents of mine were recently killed as a result of a lorry shedding its load on their car? Can he say how many instances of minor or major load shedding by road transport vehicles were reported in the last 12 months and how many of them resulted in death, injury, serious damage or delay? Is he further aware that it is practically impossible to embark on a journey of more than a few miles in this country without observing an insecure load?

Mr. Peyton: I am well aware of the serious problem to which my hon. Friend referred. I am also aware of the miserable accident to which she drew attention. I think that about 350 accidents have taken place in the last year in which insecure loading played some part. While I cannot give my hon. Friend all the information for which she asked, I can assure her that this matter is not taken lightly.

Mr. Lipton: In his consideration of this serious problem, will my right hon. Friend apply his mind to the question of nuisance caused by lorries carrying rubbish or loads of sand which are not properly covered so that all the muck and rubbish blows on to following cars?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, certainly.

Improvement Areas (Grants)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether

he will seek to increase the limit on which grant is payable for environmental improvements in a general improvement area above £100 per dwelling.

Mr. Amery: We have no firm evidence at present that the existing limit is inadequate, but I am keeping this matter under constant review.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that, now that we have experience of the working of the grant, there is widespread feeling that to be effective it must be increased quite substantially?

Mr. Amery: I have heard a number of views expressed in the same sense as that expressed by the hon. Gentleman. If he has any firm evidence for what he said, I should be pleased to receive it.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend always bear in mind that during the war the North-East Coast, because it was thought that we should be bombed to bits, was deprived of new industries and housing? The problem in the area is partly due to the fact that during the war we had to endure a very difficult time, in the national interest. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, when we put forward proposals, we do so in the light of the sacrifices which had to be made in our area in the interests of national security and protection?

Mr. Amery: I always bear in mind anything that my hon. Friend says. I shall particularly bear in mind what she said today.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give rather more urgent thought to this matter than he seemed to indicate to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)? The grant of £100 is now worth, in real terms, about £80 compared with the time when it was originally fixed. Will the Minister urgently consider increasing the grant considerably in selected housing priority areas and areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the Government contribution to the grant in the development areas. However, if the hon. Gentleman, with his vast experience of housing matters, would let me have any evidence he may have concerning areas in which an increase would be helpful, I shall be grateful to receive it.

Beaches (Tipping of Colliery Waste)

Mr. Urwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he now proposes to take in order to prevent further despoilation of beaches by tipping of colliery waste material.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have been very concerned about this problem. A Working Party of officials of the Departments concerned and of the National Coal Board has been set up to examine the financial implications of disposing offshore colliery waste at present being tipped on the Durham Coast. Further consideration will be given to the problem as soon as the Working Party has completed its task.

Mr. Urwin: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but does he realise that his answer will not be well received in areas such as that which I represent where this problem is very serious? As the tipping of colliery waste material has created and continues to create one of the gravest environmental problems in this country, is it not time that we had action instead of words, remembering that the Armistead Report was presented six years ago and that there have been discussions and conferences at the Department throughout this time? Things should be moving by this time.

Mr. Walker: For part of those six years the hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for the North, and during that time there was not the examination made of this problem that I am now making.

Improvement Grant Procedure

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to simplify the improvement grant procedure with a view to reducing the length of time it takes to get the formalities organised.

Mr. Amery: I issued a circular on procedures last July and I believe that local authorities are generally acting on it. If my hon. Friend has any point to the contrary I would be glad to look into it.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the country,

such as the City of Leicester, the time taken from initial application to the completion of all the formalities sometimes amounts to over six months? This is proving to be a real handicap in getting on with improvements. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter?

Mr. Amery: Yes, I will. Six months is far too long.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that the good intentions of his Department are being frustrated by this delay? The time which is being taken in Liverpool is unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman advise local authorities to appoint an officer with power to cut across the different departments involved? Six months for this procedure is a short time in Liverpool where the period is much longer than that.

Mr. Amery: I have said that applications should be dealt with in a week or a few days and that authorities which take more than four to six weeks should review their procedures.

Roads (South-West)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of the A30 and A303 have been double-tracked during the past year; how many will be completed during the current year; and what plans he has for extending the Basingstoke motorway M3, to the west towards Dorset.

Mr. Graham Page: The mileage of dual carriageway on these two routes was increased by 2·2 miles in 1970–71. A further 2·85 miles will be completed this year. My right hon. Friend announced plans in June for the comprehensive improvement of both routes from the end of the M3 through to Penzance.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this rate of progress it will be decades before we have proper roads to the South-West? Would it not be far better to get on with extending the motorway?

Mr. Page: No, Sir. These schemes have only recently been added to the preparation pool and they will be completed. The comprehensive development of the whole of this road—with good, modern standards fully adequate for the


traffic it will carry, traffic bottlenecks bypassed and so on—will take place in this decade, quite a good bit before 1980, I think.

Mr. David Mitchell: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the latest timetable for the eastward extension of the M3 towards London?

Mr. Page: No, Sir. There are still design problems and statutory procedures to be carried out. I should not like to Rive a date.

Mr. Crowder: Is my hon. Friend aware that I discovered last August that it was quicker to go from Southampton to Plymouth in a small motor boat than it is by road? Will he do something about this matter?

Mr. Page: I should like to join my hon. and learned Friend on his motor boat.

Preston Bypass

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now able to make a statement about the programme for the Preston Northerly Bypass, M55.

Mr. Graham Page: A public inquiry into the proposals for the route is being arranged for late February, 1972, and it is hoped that construction may start by the end of 1973.

Mr. Blaker: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said, but may I ask whether he will bear in mind that the congestion and accidents on roads in this area are in the summer months worse than they are at other times of the year and will he have that in mind in relation to the likely completion date?

Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. I am hoping to get work started on this road as soon as possible, but we are bound by the statutory procedures. I have 52 objections; a public inquiry will have to be held; and then all the procedure of land acquisition will follow. I do not think we can do it any quicker than that, much as we should like to be able to do so.

A161, Goole

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will

carry out an investigation to discover how many motor vehicles, and in particular how many heavy goods vehicles, pass over the railway level crossing on the A161, Boothferry Road, Goole, during an average weekday, and to discover what proportion of this traffic is estimated to be traffic to or from Goole Docks and traffic passing through Goole, respectively.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. I suggest that the hon. Member aproaches West Riding County Council, who are the highway authority.

Dr. Marshall: Does the Minister hope that the effects of Government policies for Humberside will increase both through traffic and dock traffic on the roads of Goole, making the need for a relief road absolutely essential?

Mr. Page: Yes, I think this is important. Right back in 1967 the West Riding County Council submitted a proposal for a southern by-pass. The scheme did not command sufficient priority to justify inclusion in the preparation list at that time, but I understand that the county council will make proposals later this year, when I shall be only too happy to consider them.

Lorries (Parking in Residential Areas)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is now considering to curb the nuisance of parking in residential areas by heavy lorries.

Mr. Peyton: I am considering the recent report of the Working Party on lorry parking.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful, of course, for the immense work which my right hon. Friend and the Department as a whole do, and I am appreciative of it, but could the Government not now act with a sense of urgency on this problem, in view of its gravity? Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the depredations by heavy vehicles in urban and residential areas, particularly in large conurbations such as London and Birmingham, and is it not time now for really urgent action to curb these monsters destroying the environment, particularly for old people and children?

Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about the gravity of the problem and the urgency, and I can assure him that my Department is fully aware of it and needs no reminders of the fact that it needs dealing with, and quickly. It is, however, an exceedingly complicated problem, and one in which many industries are involved, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to take up an attitude which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would simply add intolerably to the cost of transport.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even if, in this business, he and his Department appreciate the urgency of the matter, the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan Police Force certainly do not, and will he use his influence with his colleagues at the Home Office to bring pressure to bear on the Metropolitan Police to cease obstructing the wishes of the London boroughs, and on the G.L.C. to make use of the powers which the G.L.C. already possesses to ban overnight parking of lorries in parts of London where there are off-street parks or where the nuisance is extremely intense?

Mr. Peyton: The G.L.C., of course, deals with this matter separately. If the hon. Member has any particular area in mind and would like to call my attention to it or to any particular problem—

Mr. George Cunningham: I have for the past year.

Mr. Peyton: —I should be grateful to him if he would let me know and I will do my best to see that action is taken.

Neighbourhood Noise

Mr. Simeons: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, following the Noise Advisory Council's Report on Neighbourhood Noise, which of its recommendations he intends to seek to implement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have asked interested bodies to give me their views on these recommendations by the end of January. Thereafter I shall be making the appropriate decision.

Mr. Simeons: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind

that there is great concern about the difficulty people in this country are having in overcoming this problem? Will he, when making these decisions, take steps to see that remedies are produced much more quickly than at present?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Sir.

Water Services

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish his White Paper on water management.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the future organisation of water services very shortly.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply.

Historic Towns (New Roads)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when considering plans for new roads, he will bear in mind the environmental value of historic towns so that, where possible, they are relieved of excessive traffic.

Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir. We have done this in the programme that we have recently announced.

Mr. Marten: As my right hon. Friend, I am sure, means what he says, as he has usually done in the past, does this mean that we are to get a by-pass at Burford in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend will let me have a specific question about Burford I will look at it, but I do not think that Burford is specified as an historic town.

Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will also be welcome in Cambridge in that for East Anglia this whole problem is made all the more urgent by the otherwise beneficial prospects of Common Market membership?

Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Marten: In view of the somewhat doubtful nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

Rail Services (No-Smoking Compartments)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general direction to British Rail to provide a greater number of no-smoking compartments in their passenger services.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at present only some three-eights of the seats in trains are allocated to non-smokers although fewer than 50 per cent. of the people of the country smoke? Would he not be prepared to ease the situation, and, perhaps, also promote the anti-smoking campaign by doing something to advise the people of this country of the dangers of smoking?

Mr. Peyton: No: advice on that subject is a matter for one of my right hon. Friends and not for me. British Rail aims to provide about half the seats in non-smoking compartments, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think that that does not too inadequately reflect the figures which he quoted.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Minister seen the report of the B.M.A. requesting further help in this matter? Has he given evidence to the Prime Minister's interdepartmental committee now sitting on the whole question of the report of the Royal College of Physicians on smoking and on advertising smoking in public places?

Mr. Peyton: No. In so far as I have an interest in the conduct of the railways I think it must be in the direction of urging and assisting the railways to carry their passengers in safety and in comfort.

Rate Assessments (Revaluation)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider recommending to local authority valuation officers, now revaluing all properties for 1st April, 1973, in accordance with the provisions of the General Rate Act, 1967, not to increase assessments for that proportion of an improved value to a property which has arisen from the installation of central heating.

Mr. Graham Page: The revaluation is being carried out by the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue Department, who are obliged by Section 19 of the General Rate Act, 1967, to assess a hereditament on its open market rental value. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene. Any changes in the legislation must await the outcome of the present consultations on the Green Paper on the Future Shape of Local Government Finance.

Mr. Rost: Yes, but does my hon. Friend sympathise with the anger of many of my constituents, and householders up and down the country, in regard to the injustice of a rating system which allows a householder's rates to be increased after he has installed central heating at his own personal expense to improve the comfort of his own home, perhaps for his old age? Will my hon. Friend look at this when it comes to discussion of the Green Paper?

Mr. Page: It will be looked it, of course, but it would be unfair if assessments were not to be consistent and not to reflect the open market rental values of the properties. The householder who had central heating at the outset would be taxed on the extra value but the householder who had the facility installed subsequently would not, and I think that that would be unfair.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: At a time when we are encouraging people to improve their houses, is it not stupid to add to their problems by discouraging them from doing the very sort of thing we want them to do? If my hon. Friend has not now the power, will he get the power to intervene to have this matter put right?

Mr. Page: This is one of those matters which are being considered in the light of the Green Paper.

Property Companies (Empty Flats)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to prevent the recent practice of property companies keeping flats empty and refusing to register them until the Government's proposals for higher rents become law, in particular that Clause allowing landlords to agree rents privately with new tenants.

Mr. Channon: I am not aware of such practices, but if the hon. Member will send me details, including the areas where they are happening, I shall study them.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I can send him evidence that this is being done by such large companies as the Freshwater Group and that they have said that they will do this? Is it not obvious, in view of the housing shortage, that many landlords will take advantage of this Clause in the Bill by charging exorbitant rents to the highest bidders for empty flats?

Mr. Channon: If indeed there is that evidence, these people are very misguided, because the Bill has a different effect from that which the hon. Gentleman thinks it has. The situation will be that even if there is an agreement, the tenant at any time will have the right to go to the rent officer; his security of tenure will remain; and if there is a joint application made to register a rent, the rent officer need not necessarily register the rent put to him, but will register what he considers a fair rent.

Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that these landlords get their tenants to sign a document saying that they regard their rent as a fair rent, so that they will have very little chance when they go before the rent officer, and so will not be likely to go?

Mr. Channon: Even if that were to happen, it would still not make any difference. Rent officers must register fair rents, and there are many cases in which a rent officer has refused to register a rent even when it has been jointly submitted by landlord and tenant.

Seaforth Container Berth

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ascertain from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board the date when the new Seaforth Container Berth will be in operation; and what assessment he has made of its effect on employment in Merseyside.

Mr. Peyton: I understand that the meat berth in the Seaforth Dock is due to come into operation on 6th December; the first four container berths by next Spring; the grain terminal by July:

a further container berth and a packaged timber berth by the end of 1972.

Mr. Mahon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he hopes, with me, that it will bring more employment and prosperity to Merseyside. Is it not remarkable that a £45 million project should bring no major jobs into the port? The port labour register has dropped from 20,000 to 10,000 jobs, and there are 51,000 people unemployed on Merseyside. Does not this show the need for more initiative from the Government in bringing employment to Merseyside?

Mr. Peyton: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Seaforth Dock, which represents the future of Liverpool as a port, is in replacement of existing inadequate facilities and not in addition to them.

Mr. Dell: Does the right hon. Gentleman receive regular confidential reports of the progress of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company?

Mr. Peyton: I receive fairly regular information.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole complex of this berth is dependent upon one lock, and if that lock became immobilised either through accident or sabotage the whole complex would be put out of operation? Has he taken this point into consideration, and will he consider having another lock added to the complex?

Mr. Peyton: The cost of another lock, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, would be fairly formidable and would add to the costs of the port. If this principle were to be generally applied to all enclosed docks, it would put a fairly heavy handicap on them.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Mr. Wilkinson (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the borders between Pakistan and India, how British subjects and property are affected, and what action Her Majesty's Government is taking.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): The situation in East Pakistan gives rise to serious concern. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the precise course of events. But it is clear that there have been military clashes on a growing scale in the course of the last few days.
There are no reports of injury to United Kingdom citizens or of damage to British property. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad is in touch with representatives of the British community in Pakistan and has advised those in the border areas to consider moving to areas of greater safety.
As the House is aware my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has throughout been in continuing and close touch with the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India and these contacts are continuing. We are also in close touch with the United States and other governments.
The possibility of a Security Council meeting is one that is constantly in our minds. But neither the Indian nor the Pakistan Government have as yet been ready to call for a meeting. It is far from certain that a public debate at this stage would enhance the prospects of achieving a reduction of tension. The view of other Governments as well as ourselves has so far been that better hopes lie in the continuation of the diplomatic exchanges in which we and they are engaged.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the present situation in which attacks are being mounted in the direction of Jessore, Rangpur, Sylhet, Comilla and Chittagong, there is evidence of concerted action of an aggressive nature? As this matter causes such worldwide concern, not least in this country, which has historic, traditional and personal ties with both India and Pakistan, will he, first, ask the Prime Minister of India whether she will at long last accept the offer of the President of Pakistan to invite U Thant's mediation? Secondly, will he ask both countries to adhere to the Liaquat-Nehru ground rules, whereby regular forces were not stationed within five miles of the frontier? Thirdly, if the situation deteriorates, will Her Majesty's Government consider making a forthright statement

such as that issued on 6th September, 1965?

Mr. Godber: Making forthright statements can sometimes be of help, but I am not sure that it would be on this occasion. I am sure that we should all like to see withdrawal from the frontier, and we have urged this on both sides. As to the actual course of events and the particular attacks to which my hon. Friend refers, he will realise that all the reports are confused and conflicting. It is plain that attacks have been made across frontiers, but we are always told that it is the Mukhti Bahini who have crossed frontiers, and the Pakistanis say they have repulsed these attacks. It is the conflict of evidence that is the real problem.

Mr. Healey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the full statement he has made. I think the whole House will share the concern of Her Majesty's Government, and will approve the precautionary measures which have been taken to protect the lives of British citizens should that become necessary.
On the two major issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised, while I understand the reasons why a debate in the Security Council might not assist at this time, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that there is a patent threat to peace, indeed more than a threat to peace, in the sub-continent, and it is urgently desirable that the great Powers should get together to create the conditions for United Nations intervention?
Since the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in touch with the American Government, has he any information about the American Government's contact with the Government of the Soviet Union, and what prospects there is of general agreement by the super-Powers on this issue in the near future?

Mr. Godber: On the last point, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that I cannot say very much in regard to two other major Powers. I am aware that the contacts exist, and of course we are in touch, as I have indicated, but it is difficult for me to comment further on that.
On the main point about discussion in the United Nations, so long as neither of the two major parties directly concerned is willing to initiate debate, it is


difficult for others to do so. I think that the very high level approaches that are being made to both sides, not only by ourselves but by various others, are the best way at the moment of trying to defuse the situation.

Sir F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that time is running out very fast and, if we are not careful, we shall find the conflict spreading rapidly beyond Pakistan and India? Does the Minister still contend that only guerrillas are involved in East Pakistan? If so, can I be told why those guerrillas have heavy guns, tanks and limpet bombs? Does not the Minister realise that if this intervention goes on, however much my right hon. Friend urges moderation, it will not be long before Pakistan counter-attacks in another part of the sub-continent where it is at less of a tactical disadvantage than it is in Bengal?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the dangers of attacks in other parts. On his specific question about the use of regular forces, there is no doubt that they have been engaged. The Pakistanis on their side claim that theirs have been defensive against the Mukhti Bahini. Mrs. Gandhi said in the Indian Parliament today that some regular Indian forces had been engaged, but implied that this was to repulse Pakistani attacks across the border. It is this conflict of charge and counter-charge that is the problem at the moment.

Mr. Shore: Leaving aside allegations as to who is responsible on either side for particular incidents, surely the Minister will agree that the immediate problem is not the continuing rivalry between India and Pakistan but the continuing civil war, or war of liberation, that has been going on in East Bengal for the past six months? If this is so, and if we wish to see conflict avoided in the Indian sub-continent, as we do, the Government, with other Governments, must find ways of bringing pressure to bear on the Pakistan Government to find a solution to the civil war which they have brought upon the people of East Bengal.

Mr. Godber: Yes, I fully accept that the problems within Pakistan call for a political solution within that territory. This is what my right hon. Friend has

repeatedly urged on those concerned. The immediate problem arises with the clashes across the border. The real tragedy is that where this happens things are made much worse for the refugees. What is so deplorable is that one hears that the Bangla Desh radio is supposed to have said that food supplies are now a legitimate target. That is a shocking thing for anyone to have said and should be condemned on both sides of the House.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Are not the refugees now in a much worse plight? What contact have the Government with the United Nations Agencies to bring food to the refugees? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend say how much British property is involved, and has he any information about British interests being at stake? Thirdly, what steps have been taken to obtain information on the extent to which this conflict is being conducted by the regular army or by the Mukhti Bahini?

Mr. Godber: So far as I am aware, there is at present no risk to British property. As for the conflicting reports on the position of the Mukhti Bahini. I cannot add to what I have already said. It is a situation in which there are bound to be counter-claims on both sides.
The British position on refugees is that we want to continue supplying to the maximum extent we can within the very generous terms in which we have already sought to contribute. We shall certainly do so as long as it is possible for us to do so. If our food supplies come under attack, it will be impossible for us to maintain the supply.

Mr. Pardoe: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not only heavy guns that the Mukhti Bahini have on their side, but justice too? Would he not recognise that as a result of their success the ultimate recognition of an independent Bangla Desh is now inevitable and that we would do well to recognise this fact?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member is entitled to his point of view, but it would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to take up a partisan attitude on this matter. We must try to maintain a position in which we can try genuinely to help bring down tension, not to create it.

Mr. Tinn: I fully accept the limitations on the Government's action in matters involving independent countries, which is a matter often under-estimated in the House. However, would the Government use their high level contacts, to which the Minister has referred, to impress on the Indian Government the importance of accepting United Nations observers in the border area which for some time the Pakistan Government have been willing to accept?

Mr. Godber: This is a difficult aspect, and I personally, in contacts at the United Nations and elsewhere, have tried to reach an agreed position on both sides. I should not like to say anything publicly on this matter because, whatever point one takes, one can be criticised from either side. It would be a great help to have United Nations observers on both sides of the border. This is what I should like to see above all else.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR

FRIDAY, 10TH DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were

Mr. Edmund Dell.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat.

Mr. David Clark.

UNEMPLOYED (DEMONSTRATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be within your knowledge, Sir, but at this moment thousands of unemployed workers are marching on the Houses of Parliament or congregating outside this building. I had difficulty in getting into the House because of the large gathering of unemployed there, and I have had experience of the trouble and difficulty caused by this sort of event on past occasions.
Will you, Sir, please take whatever steps may be open to you to facilitate meetings with these unemployed persons because they, like everybody else, pay their taxes which in turn help to keep this place going. Since it is very cold outside it is surely a crying shame that they should be kept outside the building when there are some 1,100 rooms in the building into any of which they could be invited.
May I suggest that you give instructions to the authorities that those people now outside the building should be allowed inside in the warm, and that they should not be kept outside because of the alleged lack of accommodation when there is plenty of room in the building. It may be that if they get cold they may get a little exasperated with the Government and may wish to show their opposition to the Administration in ways which probably we should not welcome. I might suggest that perhaps Westminster Hall could be opened up to them, or the various committee rooms, or even the dining rooms which at this time of the day are unoccupied. I certainly hope that facilities will be made available for these people and that at least we can give them something when all they are asking for is work.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised as a point of order a matter which must be of concern to everybody. I do not think it is a matter for me to decide upon today. So far as Westminster Hall is concerned, I propose to abide by the advice given by the Services Committee in a similar situation during the last Parliament, and I propose to adopt that advice on this occasion. These other matters, however, are not for me today. They are matters of wider consideration involving the whole question of the administration of the building and the provision to be made available. They are not matters of order for me.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have the opportunity to give you notice of this matter or perhaps you would have had the opportunity of referring in the records to a similar incident which I raised with your predecessor. On that occasion there was a similar period of severe weather, and in those circumstances the then Speaker broke the normal rule by allowing into the House more representatives than was usually the custom. Your predecessor allowed those people to enter St. Stephen's Hall and on that occasion that accommodation was more occupied than is normally the case when people are allowed to wait there. I would repeat that it is bitterly cold outside, and I believe it is within your power to instruct the authorities of the House not to abide by their rigid rule of just allowing in a


small number at any one time when there are so many thousands of people waiting outside.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look look into the matter to see whether there is anything than can reasonably be done. The hon. Member will appreciate that Mr. Speaker is in difficulty because he cannot be aware of the conditions outside, but I will see if anything can be done within reason.

BILLS PRESENTED

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Patrick Jenkin and Mr. Anthony Grant presented a Bill to increase the statutory limit on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the British Airports Authority and to enable the Authority to borrow money in currencies other than sterling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

HARBOURS (LOANS) BILL

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for loans to harbour authorities to enable them to pay certain debts; to provide for the payment to the Secretary of State of the amount of past loans made by him for that purpose to such authorities; to impose a limit on loans made for that purpose to harbour authorities, on such payments and on loans made under section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964, in substitution for the existing limit on the latter; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.48 p.m.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Transport Act of 1968 left the Transport Holding Company as a rather odd body—a holding company with neither premises nor staff of its own, and very few assets to hold. These, apart from a small engineering company in South Wales, were all concerned in the travel business; 90 per cent. of Lunn-Poly; 50 per cent. of Skyways; Pickfords Travel Service; and Cooks, this being easily the most substantial. The demise of the Transport Holding Company had already been provided for by the previous Administration. What we are now proposing is a modest change in the destination of the assets, a change based upon common sense rather than doctrine.
Two of the more recent investments by the Holding Company have yielded a melancholy harvest. Skyways, in which the T.H.C. acquired a 50 per cent. holding in 1967, had, only four years later, to be placed in the hands of a receiver after over £1 million public money had been lost.
Lunn-Poly was even less happy; a controlling interest was bought in 1969 for £400,000 but trading losses estimated at over £1·2 million were incurred before the firm—together with its onerous air charters—was sold to Cunard in the summer. This somewhat misguided investment cost the public over £1·6 million.
Cooks itself has recently had a dismal profit record. Turnover has steadily increased, but profits, before tax, have declined from £1·2 million in 1968 to £0·4 million in 1970. It cannot be said that Cooks has made the most either of its reputation or of the uniquely favoured position which it occupied at the start of a period of 20 years' boom in the tourist industry.
In fact, the total return in the years 1966 to 1969 was no more than the


interest from the short-term investment of the very substantial amounts of cash which it held free of interest on behalf of its customers. In 1970 profits fell below even this sad level.
The Government concluded, as I told the House on 27th January of this year, that the right course was to dispose of the T.H.C.'s subsidiaries, and that the company itself should then be dissolved.
The future of Skyways, which was then in the hands of a receiver, had already passed out of the control of the T.H.C. or the Government. I am glad to say that Lunn-Poly, the Penarth interests, and an aeroplane which was owned by the T.H.C. but used by Skyways have been sold, leaving as the only assets of substance Cooks and Pickfords Travel Service Ltd.
Pickfords has been doing reasonably well. It operates from the offices of Pickfords Removals, a subsidiary of the National Freight Corporation. It would, clearly, be sensible for it to return to the latter concern to which it is physically attached; indeed, I cannot for the life of me understand why the previous Government ever split it off.
We therefore laid an order before Parliament on 5th August this year transferring Pickfords Travel Service to the National Freight Corporation as from 1st January, 1972. I feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite will wish to welcome this decision as well as the general approach, both of which are so eminently sensible.
Cooks, which will shortly be the T.H.C.'s only real asset, grew up as a private firm, and passed into the public sector only by an accident of war when the Belgian company Wagons-Lits, which then controlled Cooks, fell into German hands. After the war it was reorganised as a subsidiary of the railways companies, and on nationalisation in 1948 the shares were vested in the British Transport Commission. Ownership passed to the T.H.C. in 1962.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that neither the company nor the public has gained from its inclusion in the public sector. All the evidence suggests that the company would do better in the private sector and that purchasers will be prepared to pay not just for net assets but for the potential profitability of the company. Bearing in mind that the

property alone is valued at £8½ million and that total net assets are worth not less than £12 million, we can look for a very substantial price and one which reflects the very great potential of the company. This will provide an immediate and substantial benefit to public funds.
The Bill is necessary in order to put beyond any doubt the power of the T.H.C. to sell Cooks and thereafter the Government's power to dissolve the T.H.C. This is achieved by Clause 1. Subsection (1) puts beyond doubt the powers of the T.H.C. to dispose of any remaining property, rights and liabilities. The sale of Cooks will, of course, be handled by the T.H.C., which will be seeking, as will the Government, the best possible price. But I will also have in mind wider considerations in deciding whether to approve a particular sale.
Cooks is a substantial undertaking which in 1970 handled over £90 million in travel and a sum of the same order in travellers' cheques and exchanged some £80 million of foreign currencies. When I made a statement in January the Leader of the Opposition asked whether we intended to sell Cooks
to one of the crook organisations in the tourist travel industry which are not too squeamish about the safety of their customers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 813.]
or to organisations which fleece their customers. As I said then, I was surprised that he felt it necessary to put such a question, and I hope that no hon. Member today will follow such a lamentable example.
The House will not require my assurance that any such fears are totally unjustified. Of course the Government will wish to give particularly close attention to the financial standing of the proposed purchasers—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) wish to intervene?

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Perhaps I might intervene in order to give my right hon. Friend a rest. Will he confirm these figures, which seem to be critical to his case? He said that Thomas Cook had a turnover of £90 million, in addition to which it cashed cheques for £90 million. Under those two heads, therefore, the company


has a turnover of £180 million. It made a profit before tax of £400,000; in other words, less than a quarter of 1 per cent. of turnover represents its profit, which seems ludicrous.

Mr. Peyton: It was I who wished to give my hon. Friend a rest. If my hon. Friend had been able to find time to listen to what I was saying he would have heard me put three figures: £90 million on travel, £90 million on travellers' cheques, and £80 million on its handling of foreign exchange. So there is a total turnover of £260 million. As I said, the Government will wish to give close attention to the financial standing of the proposed purchasers, to their ability and intention to carry on the business and to maintain confidence, especially in what one might call broadly the "banking side".
The Government will also wish to take into account possible implications of the sale for the balance of payments. The House will recall that we have already made it clear that, while overseas bids for a share in Cooks would not be unwelcome, we consider it preferable that the company should remain under British control. I will, of course, take into account the willingness of the proposed purchaser to co-operate fully in the arrangements to safeguard staff interests, to which I shall be referring in a moment. Last, but not least, I shall wish to consider, before giving consent to the sale of Cooks to a particular purchaser, the possible effect of the sale on competition in the tourist industry, including the provision of foreign exchange facilities.
Clause 1(2) makes it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to give directions about the disposal of securities by the Transport Holding Company. This provision is similar to Section 29(4) of the 1962 Act, and its inclusion is mainly formal. I do not expect that it will be needed. The detailed arrangements for the sale, to which my hon. Friend will be referring later this evening, are now being worked out. I have been informed by the Chairman of the Transport Holding Company that the first step will be the issue of a prospectus in about the middle of next month.
The remainder of Clause 1 is mainly technical, but I should draw the attention

of the House to subsections (5) and (6). These give us limited powers to make grants to the Transport Holding Company or to the body taking over its liabilities.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend note that there is such interest in this passing back to free enterprise of this nationalised industry that there is only one Labour Member on the back benches opposite—and he is asleep—and one Liberal Member?

Mr. Roy Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We should not have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Mason: On a point of order. I think that when hon. Gentlemen who are left on the Government back benches wish to intervene they might also declare their interest when stating why they are present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was really addressing me.

Mr. Peyton: While I would not presume—

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we really carry on the business of this House on a major Bill without an effective Opposition, as there are only five hon. Members present on the benches opposite, one of whom is a Liberal anyway?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not points of order for me. We must watch the proper dignity of our proceedings and not be facetious.

Mr. James Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

An Hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman has just come in.

Mr. Hamilton: My point of order is that all my colleagues, with the exception of the five who are in the Chamber, are meeting trade unionists who have come from every part of the country to protest about the Government's policy on unemployment. On that basis, it is grossly unfair that reference should be made


to hon. Members in that fashion when constituents come to meet them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it would be wise to leave all this discussion and get on with the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend does not require the advice of the right hon. Gentleman or other hon. Gentlemen opposite. I merely make this comment and offer him my advice. It ill becomes him to call attention to the emptiness of the benches opposite when, after all, they look so much nicer that way.

Sir G. Nabarro: A cheap crack.

Mr. Peyton: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South is really talking about. When it comes to making comments about cheap cracks—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really cannot have this discussion going on along these lines. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech on Second Reading.

Sir G. Nabarro: You must get on with your speech, John.

Mr. Peyton: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I bow to your Ruling. I was seeking only to give my hon. Friend some passing tribute on a subject on which he is undoubtedly an expert.
I was saying, when I was interrupted, that subsections (5) and (6) of Clause I give us limited powers to make grants to the Transport Holding Company or to the body taking over its liabilities. These may be needed when revenue-producing assets are being disposed of. But some obligations remain; for instance, in respect of pensions and staff compensation. I attach the greatest importance to the interests and welfare of the staff and have already assured the House that pension rights will be safeguarded.
Clause 2 applies to the sale of Cooks and the subsequent dissolution of the Transport Holding Company provisions for safeguarding the position of the staff comparable with those in the earlier Acts. Detailed consultations will be needed with representatives of the staff, the

Transport Holding Company and the purchaser. The Clause, like previous provisions, gives wide enabling powers so that the most appropriate methods to safeguard pension rights and compensate anyone whose job is affected can be settled with all concerned. The Transport Holding Company itself intends to make it a condition of the sale that the purchaser undertakes to maintain the existing pension schemes, which have been revised in recent years, or provide no less favourable alternatives.
I believe that this eminently reasonable Bill is in the best interests of Thomas Cook and Son, its staff and customers. I therefore commend it to the House.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: The Minister has given us a most unconvincing and, at times, almost frivolous explanation for what we on this side of the House regard as a thoroughly undesirable Bill.
The Bill has been brought here today as a further instalment of the Government's petty and spiteful policy of hiving off profitable sectors of publicly owned industries and services, a policy which formed part of that most devalued political document of all time, the 1970 Conservative Party General Election manifesto. We are, therefore, dealing with dogma and in no sense with proposals which have been designed to be helpful in meeting legitimate and understandable difficulties.
The assets of the Transport Holding Company, which are to be sold to private bidders, are almost wholly those, as the Minister has explained of Thomas Cook and Son, whose well-known name is a byword for reliability in the unstable world of the travel trade business.
The management and staff of that firm have given considerable confidence to the public, who have been able to feel that their holiday bookings and cash transactions were safe in the hands of this highly reputable and internationally famous firm. There are many thousands of disappointed holidaymakers who can testify to the opposite experience as customers of some of the less scrupulous operators in the travel trade jungle.
No summer goes by without stories of distressed and stranded British tourists


who have fallen victim to the false prospectus of some suspect travel agency. A number of breaches of the Trade Descriptions Act have littered the news column of our newspapers in recent months. They have become quite common within the travel trade industry. This is not to mention the unfortunate experience of so many tourists who arrive to find hotels unfinished and insanitary. Thomas Cook has been free from that kind of criticism, so we are not here dealing with any question of a public service failure.
I suspect that what is proving of greater interest to the supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite is the other side of Thomas Cook's activities, its foreign exchange and travellers' cheques business.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bradley: In 1970 the foreign exchange business handled by Cooks amounted to £91 million, compared with £93½ million on the travel side. The Transport Holding Company's annual report does not give a breakdown of Thomas Cook's profits, but it is a reasonable assumption that the larger part comes not from tour operating but from travellers' cheques and exchange business.
That is what has attracted City interests. In addition to the commission charge of 1 per cent. on each cheque. Cook has the use of money for several months before encashment. At the end of 1969, we are told, £14½ million was still outstanding in cheques. During the summer peak the figure is probably double. It is little wonder that we learn from the Press how certain banking and financial groups are jostling in a queue willing to bid for Cooks. After all, they do not have to keep all the company if they acquire it, only the part which yields the highest return.
Thomas Cook is, in fact, a complicated organisation of many parts. In addition to the sale of tickets and the provision of foreign exchange facilities, it offers individual inclusive tours, package tours, business travel, conference arrangements and certain shipping and forwarding services for importers and exporters. It even owns a holiday camp at Prestatyn. The fixed assets of Thomas Cook are very clearly under-valued in the balance shoot, which takes no account of inflation

or movement in the property market. The Government, by unloading Thomas Cook on to the market, are going to create an asset-strippers' paradise.
The total staff employed by Thomas Cook worldwide is more than 5,000, of whom more than 3,000 are employed within the United Kingdom. They work through 450 branches in 54 countries. In the United Kingdom there are 109 branches and 12 shipping and forwarding branches in addition. At the moment the management is seeking to establish a further 60 new branches in Britain over the next two years in a drive to expand its inclusive tour operations.
Since the General Election the Conservative Party's plans for the development of Thomas Cook's business interests and the future of its employees have been clouded by uncertainty and speculation. The political intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have produced an atmosphere damaging to morale and detrimental to the successful prosecution of the firm's activities.
Perhaps at this stage I might declare a personal interest in that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have the honour to be the president of the trade union which caters for Thomas Cook's employees, the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, and I know from meetings which I have addressed in that capacity how anxious the staff are to have their conditions of service and pension entitlements protected in any change of ownership.
That is why I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on those points particularly on 28th January this year. I acknowledge at once that some provision has been made to meet those requirements in Clause 2, but the position is not entirely watertight, however, having regard to what was done for personnel affected by the 1953, 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts. But that is a matter which we can probe more thoroughly in Committee.
What I want to emphasise is the total opposition of Thomas Cook's staff to the principle of this sale. They have no desire to be pitchforked into the area of low pay and poor conditions which constitutes the private travel trade, and in which trade union recognition is a rarity.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware


that five years ago that could be said of many people working in the steel industry when it was threatened with nationalisation when the political decision was the reverse?

Mr. Bradley: I thought we were dealing with the travel trade, not with the steel industry. What I have said is a fact. The private travel trade is one of low pay and poor conditions as a general rule.
Great play has been made by the critics of Thomas Cook that the return of assets has been poor—

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bradley: —but it is important to remember that, whilst the travel side produced a turnover of £90 million a year, it is a commission business, and, therefore, turnover is not a direct guide to profit levels. The tourist business is also prone to fluctuations arising from the international political situation and from individual Government's internal financial policies. Our own currency restrictions and the curbs on foreign travel from France have all played their part. The company has also faced an escalation in general costs, and selective employment tax alone amounted to £360,000 in 1970.
Nevertheless, I concede that profit levels have at times been too low, and for this situation we must place the blame on top management. That it could have improved the profitability of the company is an undoubted fact. For years the management of Thomas Cook coasted along on the firm's former prestige, content to administer but not to innovate. It was slow into the package tour business, eschewing the new cheap end of the market opened up by others in the 'fifties, believing that such sales were contrary to Cook's traditional image. It is not surprising that it has a relatively small charter business. Also, it was not until four years ago that it ventured into the inclusive tour business.
Over a period of many years the same managerial mentality stubbornly refused to accept the advice of its staff and the trade union that it should start selling rival operator's tours where Cook had no tour of its own to offer. The management, however, thought that such conduct would be beneath it. Last year this long

overdue practice was introduced, and it has been a great success. More than £4 million worth of other operators' package tours has been sold this year, and no extra staff has been needed to do it.
That has been a big factor in the decision, to which I have referred, to go out for retail expansion in all our major cities. This achievement has come late in the day, and after a decade of resistance by Thomas Cook's management. If the Government are concerned over the way Cook is being run, then the remedy, as they have done with another public corporation, is not to sell the concern but to change the management at the top. All that is needed is change of outlook, not ownership.
There is no justification for this denationalisation Measure. The travel trade is highly competitive so one cannot argue that the move is necessary in order to increase competition. Indeed, since some of those who apparently want to acquire Cook are private travel interests, the result may well be a reduction in competition and the creation of a virtual monopoly as Cook's retail outlets are used to push own-brand sales to a point which will eliminate very many private travel agencies.
Mr. Gordon McNalley, the managing director of Exchange Travel, said on behalf of a consortium of travel operators, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 5th February this year:
The travel trade is concerned to prevent the Cook colossus falling under the direction of any particular group which would ultimately wield a power which could dictate its wishes to the detriment of almost any member of the industry.
In my view, the Minister is missing a great opportunity—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Hon. Members: The hon. Member has an interest.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have an interest in this matter, but not in the tour operating field. As a tour travel agent, I have an interest, but not in Cooks as such and certainly not in Cooks as a saleable proposition. Until recently, Cooks has been selling its own brand and nothing else. As a consequence, it has lost money. Since it has gone over to selling other people's tours, it has been making a little more, and the potential for making


more was there because of this wider intake of tours. Clearly, therefore, if anyone takes over Cooks, it would not be in his interests to sell only one brand, since the large spread of Cooks' offices is a very good market for selling all brands of travel.

Mr. Bradley: I am afraid that the prevalent fear in the travel trade is that the enormous number of retail outlets of Cooks will be used to push the products of any successful bidder. This is confirmed in article after article in Travel News, the journal of the trade.
I repeat that the Minister is missing a great opportunity to make Thomas Cook the center piece of a national travel and tourist business which could be used in alliance with and to promote all aspects of the B.O.A.C., B.E.A., British Rail and National Bus Company services. Instead, for purely doctrinaire reasons, he intends to allow private enterprise to cash in on the years of hard work by those who have established the high international reputation of this firm.
Can the Minister not tell us whether bids will be allowed by other public companies? Will he either increase their borrowing powers or permit them to borrow in the City, exactly as private buyers will be able to do, to purchase these assets? There have been rumours in the Press of a restricted B.O.A.C.-B.E.A.-Barclays Bank stake. If this is true, is it another example of this Government's demanding that State undertakers should behave like commercial concerns while at the same time preventing them from doing so?
Is it intended to sell separately Cooks' shipping and forwarding section? This is a purely freight importing and exporting business. Surely, the best and logical thing to do with this part of the organisation is to transfer it to the National Freight Corporation, where it can be integrated with Pickfords and Container-way Services. With Cooks' contacts throughout the world a very important nucleus upon which a very good and reliable service could be evolved under the National Freight Corporation.
The Minister admitted today that he had no difficulty in transferring Pickford's Travel Services from the Transport Holding Company to the National Freight

Corporation earlier this year. What prevents him from dealing with this specialist section of Thomas Cook in a similar way?

Mr. Peyton: Before the hon. Gentleman presses this argument further, I would point out that there is a basic difference between the two sides of the House. We would wish to see the public sector diminished, because we do not believe that its contribution to the economy is as favourable as the hon. Gentleman believes it. The hon. Gentleman and his party have made much of public ownership but not a great success of it; this is our point.

Mr. Bradley: Then I can only assume that it is merely a question of time before the Minister comes forward with proposals to sell British Rail, the National Freight Corporation, the National Bus Co. and other public companies. Of course, if he wishes to inject that kind of political thinking into the life of the country, he is asking for considerable disruption and dismemberment of the economy. Public ownership has many proud achievements. We can give example after example of the way in which it has behaved responsibly. The Minister insists on bringing a doctrinaire approach into this very serious matter.
I repeat that the Minister should transfer this specialist section of Thomas Cook to the National Freight Corporation in the same way as he did Pickford's Travel Services. A great potential traffic flow is involved here and it requires to be organised on a national and not a competitive basis—

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Bradley: No. The hon. Gentleman is being almost as rude to me as he was to his right hon. Friend. I would ask him to resume his seat to allow me to get on.
We are, therefore, utterly opposed to this needless Bill. It is a piece of vindictive nonsense. It is the product of small, politically motivated men who, careless of the uncertainty which they have created, aim only to satisfy the appetites of their party's zealots and business supporters. There is no sound economic reason for what is being done. Individuals should not benefit from the nation's investment. That is why we


say that Cooks and all the other hived-off sections of public industry will be reacquired by the next Labour Government on a basis which will bring no financial advantage to those who now buy them. Therefore, for the reasons which I have given, I would ask the House to reject this miserable Measure.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Fox: In welcoming these proposals, I do so not in the belief that they are vindictive or small-minded, as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) suggested, but rather because I believe that the Minister is being forward-looking in doing something which should have been done in our last 14 years of office. I do not accept from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are the best people to make commercial judgments on issues of this character. Their record is to the contrary. I believe the Bill to be right, in so far as my right hon. Friend has said that in the first place this was an accident and that this company should have been handed back immediately after the war. We are now putting the record straight: this company has been in a privileged position.
This company has operated like a State industry public body. We have seen, in a highly competitive field, a mentality that one can best compare with that of the Civil Service. One gets the atmosphere in the head office of this company. This is not a commercial enterprise than can do any good in public hands. The facts speak for themselves.
I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but, on my reckoning, a profit of £400,000 on a turnover of £260 million seems to represent one-fifth of 1 per cent. and not a quarter of 1 per cent.—

Sir G. Nabarro: The Minister in charge of this debate evidently misunderstood my calculation. I deliberately excluded the third item of £80 million, which is not comparable in terms of turnover to the two first-stated items, each of £90 million. When my hon. Friend examines the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will clearly see that I proceeded with the utmost propriety—placing £400,000 of profit before tax

over £180 million and thereby arriving at a profit rate compared with annual turnover of between a quarter of 1 per cent. and a fifth of 1 per cent. I am utterly correct in that calculation.

Mr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I do not believe that it is wrong to relate profit to total turnover.
The company has made several errors of judgment. I question the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East that it should have been in the package tour business earlier. That venture has not been a success. Cooks would have been far better employed building up the side of the business at which it was successful, and at which it had been even more successful in the past. I am referring particularly to travellers' cheques. A discount of 1 per cent. on a turnover of £90 million is not a bad profit to start from. The company has lacked the aggressive sales techniques that any company in that business needs. The progress made by American Express is an example.
One alternative open to us is to let sleeping dogs lie. That would have been more relevant a little time ago. The Opposition would like us to do that, because to them every part of public ownership is whiter than white.

Mr. Bob Brown: The hon. Gentleman suggested that Cooks lacked an aggressive sales technique. Would not he rather accept that Cooks have not embarked on the very questionable sales techniques of many of the tour operators?

Mr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman believes that aggression in sales is wrong, I am sorry for him.

Mr. Brown: I said "questionable".

Mr. Fox: I would not for a moment suggest that I want Cooks to operate as certain people in the industry have operated. But let us keep those people out of the debate, because none of them will be involved in the sale. In any case, they form a small part of the industry, and the public have the answer in their own hands.
Although I accept the honourable position the company holds, if it is as good as the hon. Member for Leicester,


North-East suggests, how is it that the public have turned elsewhere to meet their needs?
The Opposition's course of action would be to leave things as they are. But we say that the Government should not be involved in the business at all. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on getting rid of Skyways and Lunn-Poly. We are now on the next part of the exercise. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that we hope that my right hon. Friend has not finished his venture.

Sir G. Nabarro: He has not even started.

Mr. Fox: I believe that he has started.
The Opposition are always sore when a venture like Thomas Cook fails, but in open competition where the Government are involved free enterprise usually wins. We know the results; we have seen it on so many occasions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Fox: Rolls-Royce is doing very nicely. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that it is now improving its position.

Mr. Lyon: On public money.

Mr. Fox: Not just public money.
In an industry where handsome profits have been made, it is nonsense to have a public involvement. At best, it is a wasteful use of public resources, and at worst there is always the risk of a large loss, which will be met by the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated not only on saving the taxpayer money but on giving the public a better service.
The terms provided by the Bill completely answer the allegation that the staff have been thrown to the wolves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has suggested, they will get far better protection than many private employees who were taken over by nationalised concerns not so long ago. We welcome that. Their rights, and particularly their pension rights, will be looked after.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will get a good price. With assets of £13 million

and the scope provided by its turnover, Cooks is a company that should attract a considerable sum. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that a good sum must be obtained and that the company should stay in British hands. I should like the name "Cook" to be kept, because it is part of our history. Whatever we may say in this debate, none of us decries the immense amount of good the company has done over the years in encouraging travel.
We on this side could not suggest that the company should be taken over by another nationalised industry. I do not rule out a consortium of a number of companies, and if B.O.A.C. or British Rail, or American Express for that matter, wished to have a part in the company, there could be no objection.
At the end of the day, I support the Bill, because, as a shareholder—we are all shareholders in the company—I believe that the nation will welcome what we are doing.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Ron. Lewis: I disagree with the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox). Whilst I have no personal interest in the matter, my union has a slight interest in that some of its members are employed by Thomas Cook.
The dissolution of the Transport Holding Company means, in effect, handing over the largest and most famous travel agency in the world, probably resulting in a hotchpotch of private enterprise companies, not one of them in any way approaching Cooks' world prestige.
A number of questions need to be answered. What will happen to Cooks' foreign exchange and travellers' cheques business? The sale of travellers' cheques alone totalled £91 million last year. With so many smaller firms and agencies going out of business, is there any other travel company that could match Thomas Cook for public confidence in the provision of financial facilities?
It is interesting to note the facilities that Cooks now offers: the sale of tickets on behalf of operators—airlines, railways and road and shipping companies; the provision of hotel accommodation, travel insurance and similar auxiliary services; the provision of travellers' cheques,


foreign exchange and other financial facilities; individual tours of all kinds, arrangements for business travel and even the arrangement of conferences. There are also the creation and marketing of package holidays. In addition, there are car travel through holidays planned for the motorist; certain shipping and forwarding services for importers and exporters; and, last but not least, a holiday camp at Prestatyn in North Wales.
Cooks deals with many special and international assignments. From its offices in New York, Paris and Geneva it deals with the travel requirements of the United Nations Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O. the World Health Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. It also deals with the travel requirements of this House, which are very important. It has an agency agreement with Wagon-Liss, which is one of the reasons why it came into public ownership in the first place. Cooks, unlike any other firm in Britain, covers Europe and most of the world.
I venture to assert that, once it is sold, there is no other agency which could match Cooks with these facilities. If the Government have their way, it may be matched in bits and pieces, but its international scale could not be matched. It is certain that the British public have a right as owners of Cooks even if they cannot prevent its being sold. This Government have no mandate for the sale, as they had no mandate for the sale of the State pubs in my constituency.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that the Tory Party had no mandate at the last General Election to deal, for example, with these miniscule operations of denationalisation such as State public houses in Carlisle and Thomas Cook. But we have the overall mandate to reduce the area of public ownership, and it is in pursuit of that that we are getting rid, by hiving off, of unrewarding undertakings such as Thomas Cook and the State pubs.

Mr. Lewis: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is dishonest on the part of the Tory Party to do these things when it did not give the electors any opportunity to judge them one way or the other.

Mr. John Pardoe: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason why the Government have no mandate is that they did not command more than half the votes cast at the last General Election; that more votes were cast for Liberal and Labour candidates than were cast for the Conservative Party. If the Conservatives wanted a mandate, they could reform the electoral system.

Mr. Lewis: If I talked too long about the Carlisle State pubs, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order, and that is the last thing I want, having had my little say on that issue when the House discussed it.
Returning to Thomas Cook, a business of this nature and prestige must not be split amongst the companies which so far have expressed an interest. They have done that most probably in the hope of easy pickings, as was the case with the brewers in my constituency. Some of them may be interested in only parts of the business. But the various facilities of the company are interdependent, and the company must not disposed of piecemeal at a give away price. We cannot get any information even now on what is happening in Carlisle because the Government seem to be a little cagey, and many of my constituents seem to think that with the State pubs some backhanders are being given. I do not want that said about this Bill. The company's very size and value make its sale as a single entity impossible at a realistic price, and it must be retained in public ownership if we cannot sell it as a whole at a realistic price. After all, it is the public's money that the Government would be giving away. The public are entitled to a high price.
The profits in 1970 amounted to about £400,000, compared with £1,100,000 the previous year. But everyone in the travel trade knows today that 1970 was recognised in many respects as a disappointing year in the trade generally.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the profits fell to £400,000 last year, and that profits vary. But he ought to know that in the current year those profits of £400,000 have virtually disappeared.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know. We had better wait until the financial statement is presented, and then we shall be in a better position to see. But the Government are always selling off the profitable sections of the nationalised industries.

Sir G. Nabarro: That section is not profitable.

Mr. Lewis: It is making a profit, as were the State pubs in my constituency. They were making a very handsome profit.
During the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill and the Code of Industrial Practice the Government made great play of the suggestion that one of their main concerns was encouraging trade union membership. This is an opportunity for them to put their words into effect, because Cooks is the only travel agency with trade union organisation on any scale. Will the Government give an undertaking that a condition of sale will be that trade union membership will be encouraged and sustained by whoever purchases the company? The total staff of Thomas Cook, worldwide, is over 5,000, and many are union members. It is doubtful whether there are as many union members in all other travel agencies combined.
I was glad of the assurance from my Front Bench today that the Labour Party's policy, when we form a Government after the next General Election, will be that any part of the nationalised industries which is sold now shall be taken back into public ownership without any compensation. I go a little further. When we form the Government of the day I hope we shall look at this question and not even give compensation equivalent to the amount for which these industries are sold. We have already given the undertaking that they will come back into public ownership. I say to whoever purchases them and to whoever purchased the State brewery in my constituency, and all the pubs, "Let the purchaser beware."

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but at this moment the Metropolitan Police have brought in the mounted police at the gates of the St. Stephen's entrance to the House of Commons. I have been watching the

events there. There was certainly a great deal of pushing; much too much pushing, in my opinion. But, in my view, to bring in the mounted police is a provocation which will create more problems than it will solve. Under those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to protest at the use of mounted police and, at the same time, to urge that the officials of the House should make every endeavour to get them removed at the earliest possible moment, and return to some normal procedures at the St. Stephen's entrance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I do not think that that is a point of order for me.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask that the Home Secretary should come to the House and look into the whole matter? This is a very important issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That, again, is not a matter for me.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you any authority to send for the Home Secretary because of this situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I do not think that I have that authority.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I warmly welcome the Bill. It implements much of what we on this side promised during the recent elections. But not only at the last election, but on many other occasions the Conservatives have made it quite clear that the State should handle as little as possible of the nation's money and that people should be given greater opportunity to spend their own money. This means that raising funds by means of increased taxation to take part in activities which should be no concern of the State should cease, wherever possible, and be reduced where this is not possible. I welcome the Bill as one more move in the right direction.
I wonder whether the exposition by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) of the virtues of Thomas Cook might not turn out to be the same as that an American congressman would have delivered to expound the virtues of the American Express Company should Congress ever decide to nationalise that


company. The virtues of the American Express Company and of Thomas Cook are world-renowned. The company in the United States is in the private sector. The British company has inadvertently fallen into the public sector after the declaration of war in 1939. I believe that Thomas Cook can well revert to the private sector and continue to enjoy the reputation it has recently acquired.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I be allowed to put the record straight? Thomas Cook has not fallen inadvertently into the nationalised sector. It was put into the nationalised sector by a decision of the House when the railways were nationalised in 1947. No one should make such wild statements as the hon. Gentleman has just made. The decision was that of the British Parliament in 1947. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that silly statement.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs. He well knows that in 1939 Thomas Cook was taken over by the railway companies. The decision to nationalise the railway companies was taken in 1947. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me he is welcome to do so, but I think that he and I agree on the matter.
Why must we have the Bill at all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Thomas Cook should not have been in the public sector in the first place. I was one of the hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Transport Bill in 1968. Section 53(1,a) of the Act contains phraseology which gave hon. Members concerned great cause for thought:
(1) The Minister may by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—
(a) transfer any such property, rights and liabilities of the Holding Company as may be specified in the order, being property, rights or liabilities not already transferred under section 4 or 28 of this Act or this paragraph, from the Holding Company to such other person, being either a publicly owned body (that is to say, a body established for the carrying on of any industry or part of an industry …
It is the wording of the 1968 Act which makes it necessary to have the Bill. I regret that the Secretary of State cannot take the type of action which he took with Skyways Coach Air Limited.
My right hon. Friend has outlined the need to do this. The company was originally purchased for about £26,000. The public injection of finance was £1½5 million and then there was the further demand for £0½3 million which prompted the course of events which we know. Similarly, Lunn-Poly was purchased for a low figure by Cunard—namely, for some £100,000. The original purchase price was £400,000 and again there was an injection of public money—some £1½3 million.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. A dangerous position is arising outside the House of Commons. Following on from the previous point of order, is it not possible for you from the Chair to ask or instruct the Serjeant at Arms to investigate and see if there is anything in the powers of the Officers of the House which will alleviate this problem, which might get worse?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is going on outside the House is not directly within my purview, but, if something else is going on inside the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me and I might then be inclined to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past it has been a matter where instructions have been given to the Serjeant at Arms. No one understands better than hon. Members the difficult task that the police have on an occasion like this. There are a very large number of people outside who feel very strongly. I will not go into the merits of the issues which have been debated in the House. All of us have sympathy for the police in this. I have met literally hundreds of those who have come within the precincts of the Palace. They are peaceable, and I think that they are concerned to put their point of view in a peaceful way.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have no powers to ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into this matter on behalf of hon. Members, all of whom want to see the lobby proceed peacefully and the task of the police eased, is it not for the Government Front Bench to make representations to the Home Secretary that someone on his behalf should watch this situation


and intervene to ensure that it is as peaceful a demonstration as I am sure that most of the demonstrators wish it to be and as the whole House wishes it to be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As it is plain that there is something going on which we desire should not go on, it would probably be best for me to ask the Serjeant at Arms to see if he can find out what is happening and to inform me.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, through you, we can address a question to the Leader of the House, who is also the Chairman of the Services Committee, which holds responsibilities for the services of the House and for the approaches to the House and request that he, too, should make inquiries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it is sufficient if we ask the Serjeant at Arms to do this for the moment, and to inform me of what is happening.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. We are glad that the Leader of the House has now arrived. I appreciate that events have moved quickly, and we therefore understand the position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. We welcome the speed with which he has come to the House.
May I repeat, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, what has gone before? First, you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, have acceded to the request that the Serjeant at Arms be asked to inquire what is happening. All of us want to protect the police. Second, I have said that all of the demonstrators whom I have met are very peaceable and friendly. If this matter is outside the purview of the Serjeant at Arms, perhaps the Government Front Bench will bring the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary so that he can have a representative there to see that as far as possible this matter is dealt with with the utmost consideration, so that those who want to come to the House and lobby in a peaceful manner will be allowed to do so.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point

of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I respond to the Leader of the Opposition and say, first, that I am grateful for the way in which he has raised this matter.
Representations will be made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms will look into the matter. It is in the first instance a matter for him and for the Inspector of Police on the spot. I will see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is duly warned.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am grateful to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in the House attending the debate a few minutes ago when the point of order was raised about the police. I have just been outside. As some criticism was levelled, may I say that the police outside seem to be doing a splendid job with great good humour but they are having to cope not only with the unemployed, but with large numbers of students who obviously are not unemployed.

Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one made any allegations against the police in the previous point of order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not for any hon. Member on either side to seek to make a judgment. All that we can ask you to do—you have now agreed to do it, and the Leader of the House has also agreed to take action—is to ask those who are competent to take direct action so to do.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for interrupting his speech.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I appreciate the seriousness of the situation which gave rise to that interruption, and I will continue with my contribution to this debate.
In my view the incursion of the Transport Holding Company into, for example, the Lunn-Poly and Skyways Coach Air Ltd. type of business did not prove a success. The public money invested in Thomas Cook could have been more wisely spent.
What do we know about Thomas Cook? It is clear that it should never have been brought into the public sector,


where it has existed for a number of years. Its presence among other public industries sticks out like a sore thumb. It is like a golden nugget in a sack of coal. It is a great and valuable asset among all those interests that have been nationalised.
It is not my purpose to discuss whether a sack of coal, by which I mean the existing nationalised industries, is of poor or good quality. Nor is it my purpose to discuss the way in which any of these industries are run. Time and again we have discussed reports of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. We have tried to establish yardsticks for the running of individual industries and we have suggested the form in which public accounts should be presented.
I suggest that a coal merchant does not necessarily have the expertise to handle gold, and this type of gold, which is bought and sold throughout the world, is better handled by the dealers who specialise in this type of precious metal. Thomas Cook is a nugget of good quality but in view of what has been said about it and the criticism that has been made of its management, it is clear that it has become somewhat tarnished.
I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty in this matter. If he were to run down Thomas Cook now and condemn its management and structure, he would make it more difficult for the Transport Holding Company to sell it at a good price, and he must give an assurance that public money is not wasted by debasing an asset for which he is responsible. On the other hand, if he praises its virtues too greatly hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that there is no case against keeping it as a State enterprise.
Thomas Cook is the type of activity which should not be run by the State, and time and again my hon. Friends have made it clear that there are fringe activities and assets that ought to be released by such sales and used to expand those businesses for which the nationalised industries are primarily responsible. To put it bluntly—and I promise not to continue with this analogy—dealers in rare metals do not trade in coal. Coal merchants are well advised not to trade in gold, and this parallel—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman must, before proceeding, say why, if what he has said is true, we have such things as conglomerates in private enterprise. Is it really necessary for everyone to stick to his last when it is possible for marketing organisations to handle a great many different products?

Mr. Osborn: That subject is probably best pursued in debates following the Reports of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. In any event, the nationalised industries as a whole have given a poor return on the capital employed, particularly when they are in competition with firms carrying on similar activities in the private sector. If the hon. Gentleman will read speeches I have delivered on this subject in the past, particularly when we have debated reports of the Select Committee, he will see that I have made my views clear.
I come to the imputation by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite that the management of Thomas Cook has not been progressive and that this has been responsible for many of its failings. Parliament is not well fitted to criticise management, and this is one of the problems we face, whether we are debating a small or large nationalised industry.
Be that as it may, let us consider what we know about the travel industry. I have been in touch with the—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] I do not apologise for interrupting the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and I do so in the knowledge that the point I wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has already been raised with the Chair on two occasions. I raised it with Mr. Speaker and foretold that there would be a lot of trouble unless assistance was given to the electors and taxpayers of this country who are being forced on to the unemployment market and who have come here by appointment to see their hon. Members.
I rise on a point of order to inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these citizens are being prevented from coming here, into the Palace of Westminster, although they have appointments to see their hon. Members. Outside the doors


of this building are hundreds of policemen preventing them from entering, yet there are plenty of rooms in this House available and empty. Westminster Hall, St. Stephen's Hall and all the Committee Rooms are empty. Our constituents are waiting outside to see us and we have made appointments with them to come here to talk to us. This is a breach of privilege, I claim, because no one—I emphasise "no one"—is entitled to stop hon. Members meeting and discussing matters with their constituents.
I want you to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that someone has given an order. As a result, police are stopping people from coming into this House to see us. I ask you to defend the democratic right of the people to come here and see their hon. Members. I urge you to order, not to ask, whoever was responsible for giving this order to the police to withdraw it so that we may see our constituents. Nobody should prevent my constituents from coming here to see me.
I am very well aware that a number of hon. Members feel the same way as I do about this because they, too, have made appointments to see their constituents—[Interruption.] I intend to refuse to allow the debate to continue until you see to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I retain my right to see my constituents. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not care about this. I do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Gentleman is making loud statements.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: People are making loud protests.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is not true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —because he has doubtless been doing other things.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have been here, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Steps have already been taken—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am replying to it.
Steps have already been taken to find out what is happening. When the report is made to me, I shall decide what, if anything, I can do.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am speaking to one. You made a false statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: You have made false statement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. You are wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) resume his seat?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I simply want to tell you that I was in the House and heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have just been outside. I can tell you what is going on out there, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman refrain from trying to monopolise the proceedings?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My point of order, in addition to reminding you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was here and heard the Leader of the Opposition speak about this and the Leader of the House answer him, is to tell you that the mounted police are batoning down my constituents. I want—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat I shall have to name him.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have been in the Chamber intermittently during the debate. I was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised this matter a little time ago. I thought I heard you say at that time that the matter he raised was not within your province, that you could not deal with it. In view of what you have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—that you have commenced inquiries into the matter—presumably that has happened during one of the periods in which I have been out of the Chamber. Is that the present position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been out several times during the afternoon to see constituents. I took part in the march this morning from Euston to Tower Hill, which was well-conducted both by the marchers and the police. Unfortunately, someone in the early part of this evening gave orders to use mounted police to clear the area outside St. Stephen's entrance. This has had a very bad effect. The area is now cordoned off, arrests are being made and people are being prevented from entering the House. If it were possible for people who are on deputations coming in and for people going out to be filtered through, there would not be a build-up of the problem existing at present. As one who has witnessed many of these demonstrations, I would say that I have not seen one as bad as this one at present outside the House, and I ask you, with great respect, and, through you, Mr. Speaker, for something to be done as soon as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman at this stage that something has already been done. The Leader of the House has been into the Chamber and has undertaken to take steps to see that there is an investigation and if necessary to put right anything that is wrong.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I lost my temper and I apologise. But I did hear the exchange between the two Front Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of

the Opposition, and I raised this point with Mr. Speaker at 3.30. The point I am trying to put is that, notwithstanding what may or may not be taking place now, you or Mr. Speaker should give an order that these people should be allowed into St. Stephen's Hall, Westminster Hall and the Committee rooms, because the place is almost empty.
What I am suggesting is that we should get them in off the streets, first, because of the cold outside, and, secondly, because they can be controlled better inside than outside. If they are inside, hon. Members can meet them in the Committee rooms and discuss matters with them. Surely there are many hon. Members not here at the moment who would like the opportunity to meet these people. Therefore, let them all come in. Let us get as many in as possible to avoid the possibility of batoning and the horses being used and all the uproar outside. I suggest with respect that this can be done immediately and that the other investigation can take place later.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the various interventions which have been made, I wonder whether the Government Front Bench could confirm that not only are Officers of the House investigating but that the Home Secretary himself, so I understand, has intervened in the matter. If that is the case, I think that we are at the point where something now can be resolved.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House came in as soon as he heard that the Leader of the Opposition was here and assured him that a message would be conveyed to those in authority. Literally only minutes have elapsed since then. I am sure that by this time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of the situation.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Further to that point of order. I ask whether the Home Secretary or someone from his Department will give immediate instructions for the withdrawal of the mounted police, the most provocative force that is used in demonstrations of this kind. It is our task to see that our constituents have access to this House, and we cannot tolerate the use of mounted


police against them. May I ask whether the Home Secretary will give that instruction immediately?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would not want to misrepresent the situation. I was downstairs and I saw police letting groups in.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They should let the whole lot in.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: They cannot let the whole lot in. They were letting groups in to various rooms, where deptutations have been met by hon. Members. I followed some of the groups coming through. Many of us believe that the mounted police are not provocative and that their use is part of the normal activities of the police.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must take issue with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I was told that no one was to be allowed in. I myself was prevented from coming in until it was explained that I was a Member of this House. Constituents of mine who have come here on a delegation to the Minister, about an important contract which would mean employment for thousands of people in Manchester, have not been allowed in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the moment has been reached to leave the matter for the moment where the Leader of the House made his statement I think that hon. Members will accept the statement as dealing with the situation for the moment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sympathise with the view you have just expressed, but there is a matter of some urgency. Some of my hon. Friends have indicated that men have been arrested because they are trying to get into the House and the police have stopped them. If that is true surely it is a prima facie breach of privilege and cannot be left until tomorrow morning because, if these men are arrested today they will be brought before the magistrates tomorrow.

Surely in these circumstances the Chair should rule, before legal proceedings are taken, that this is a breach of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not propose to say that a breach of privilege has been committed until I know precisely what has happened. What happens out in the street is not a breach of privilege here.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance. There appears to be great concern about the situation obtaining outside St. Stephen's entrance—particularly on this side of the House. Am I in order in requesting you to suspend this Sitting for half an hour so that we can go down and interpose ourselves between the mounted police and our constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it is necessary to suspend the Sitting at present. The Leader of the House, together with what colleagues he can get hold of at short notice, is dealing with the matter and I think that we should leave it there for the moment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are strong feelings on this matter and there is great concern. Could the Government Front Bench assure us that the Leader of the House, who has been most helpful—we realise that he has been making inquiries only in the last 5 or 10 minutes—will come to the House at the earliest possible moment and make a statement?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put his question. A message has been conveyed already to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Hon. Members know his willingness to help the House on all occasions. I have no doubt that he will do so on this one.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to move that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do report progress or suspend the House or something, because I am not satisfied.
I raised this point at 3.30, almost two hours ago. I am not concerned with what the Home Secretary may or may not be doing. I am more concerned with what he does to protect the rights of hon. Members, back benchers in particular, and their constituents. What I


want is for the Chair to give instructions that any constituents of mine or any other hon. Member shall be allowed to come into the precincts of the House—into the Central Lobby or Westminster Hall. I am not concerned as to whether the Home Secretary has or has not given orders to the police. That is his business. I am concerned that it is almost two hours since I raised this issue, because I knew the situation that was coming. I cannot get out to see them and they cannot come in to see me. I have raised the matter with Mr. Speaker. What is needed is a simple instruction to the effect that every person outside who wants to come in shall be allowed to come in. There is ample room in this Palace for them all to be accommodated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that what has already been done to achieve what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is quite sufficient in the circumstances. I propose to leave the matter there. Mr. Osborn.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: When I began my contribution, I promised that it would be short. I hope that HANSARD will not record me as having made the longest intervention in any debate in my parliamentary career.
I was trying to show how the tourist industry has expanded. The Association of British Travel Agents points out that in 1961 it had 44 affiliated members. In the current year it has 310. In 1961, it had 458 full members and currently it has 1,455. The total number of officers in the same period has risen from 1,006 to 3,580. There has been a considerable expansion in the number of holiday visitors from this country, including people going on cruises. The figure was 5 million in 1968, 5½3 million in 1969 and 5½6 million in 1970. I suggest that Thomas Cook and Son has not shared in this expansion.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order. I have made inquiries of the officer on duty at the St. Stephen's entrance and I am told that nobody is being allowed into the House and that if we want to meet our constituents we have to break the police barrier in order to get outside. This is monstrous and a breach of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has seen what he has seen. I now have a report from the Serjeant at Arms which says that many policemen have already been injured, and it could well be, in those circumstances, that it is not practical to allow people to come into the building.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. When the Chair rules that electors cannot come to see their Members at the Palace of Westminster because certain police officers have been injured, surely we have reached the stage at which there has been a breach of privilege. It must be the right of any Member of Parliament to see his constituents in the House if they wish to come in.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has pointed out many times, there is plenty of room in the Palace where Members can see their constituents. Surely it is right that people should be allowed in—perhaps in a trickle or perhaps in a controlled flow—to see their Members of Parliament at regular intervals. Surely they cannot be stopped just because some police officers have been injured.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made no ruling whatsoever on the rights of constituents to come into the House. I have made certain animadversions about it being possible for them to come in. As a matter of fact, I have just heard that constituents are being allowed in.

Mr. Rose: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You seemed to indicate that there might be some danger involved if people were allowed to come into the Palace because policemen have been injured. Therefore, it would seem very strange that I should be informed by an officer that it was all right for me to go into the crowd. This would seem to be inconsistent. My constituents are not being allowed to come in to see me. In five minutes I am due to have an important meeting with a Minister. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suspend the sitting immediately so that this matter may be dealt with, because some of us have problems arising from what appears to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My information is that constituents are being allowed in.

Mr. Rose: That is not true.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect, and without wishing to enter into the merits of this serious matter and commotion which has been brought to the attention of the Chair, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has made, in my hearing, a submission to the Chair that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege. I therefore suggest, with the utmost respect, that when a submission is made from the Floor of the House that there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House the Chair must say that it will consider the submission and give a Ruling. It cannot be just brushed aside. I am not speaking to the merits of the situation, but I submit that you, Sir, cannot dispose of the submission in that way. I therefore seriously suggest that, if you feel in no position to give a Ruling or that you have not sufficient authority to do so, your clear duty is to send for Mr. Speaker so that he may take the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of privilege. I have been told that constituents are now coming in. Perhaps the matter can rest there.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have witnesses to something which happened in Westminster Hall two minutes ago. I saw a police officer physically twisting the arm of a constituent. I told the officer that I was a Member of Parliament and I asked him to let the man go as I wanted to discuss matters with him. The policeman not only refused but physically attempted to prevent me from speaking to the man. I said, "I want to speak to that man. Let him go". He not only refused but sent for more police, and the man was dragged away through Westminster Hall. I explained to the police that I was a Member of Parliament, and they spoke to me by name, saying, "It is all right, Mr. Lewis". I said, "It is not all right". They knew who I was.
We know the battles that we have had in the 1970s between the Commons and the Crown and authority. We must stand up for the ordinary people, not for authority. Hon. Members witnessed the occurrence about which I have just spoken.

The police would have used physical force against me had it not been obvious that Members were watching. I have seen a man being manhandled within the precincts of the Palace. This is not good enough.
I therefore suggest that you, Sir, should suspend the sitting and go and see what is happening. You will see, Sir, that people are not being admitted; indeed, they are being physically prevented from coming in. What greater breach of privilege is possible than a situation in which an hon. Member says to the police, "Please allow me to speak with my constituent", and they not only refuse but twist the man's arm behind his back and drag him along Westminster Hall? That happened two minutes ago in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. David Steel: Further to the point of order. This was a long-term operation which was planned as an orderly demonstration. I received a letter from Mr. Vic Feather of the T.U.C. asking if I would circulate my colleagues and request them to see their constituents. Some of my colleagues represent very remote constituencies and people may have travelled a long way. Not one of us has yet received a constituent. If the allegations which have been made by hon. Members are correct, this is a most serious matter.
I suggest, with great respect, that the proper course is to ask Mr. Speaker to return to the Chair to suspend the sitting. This is a most serious matter; I have never known anything like it in my relatively short time as a Member. The right of access to the Palace of constituents who have travelled some distance to see their Members of Parliament is crucial. We cannot brush it aside by raising points of order in the middle of a debate.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may be able to help the House. On the previous point of order, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition I said that I would report the position to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That I have done. Of course, the House will appreciate that it is a matter for the Commissioner of Police—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a matter for the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to come to the point. If he will allow me, I am coming to the point and to accept the point he is making, but I cannot accept it if he will not allow me to reach it.
I understand that Mr. Speaker is coming back to the Chair. Mr. Speaker, as you have now returned to the Chair may I proceed with the point of order which I was addressing to Mr. Deputy Speaker?
My point is simply that, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition, I reported the situation, as far as the police are concerned, to the Home Secretary. I understand that, in my absence, hon. Members have raised other matters not necessarily concerning the police. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will agree that some of the references he has made concern the police. As far as matters concerning this House are concerned, I understand that the Serjeant at Arms was inquiring into these matters. As far as I am concerned. I am entirely, Mr. Speaker, in your hands as to what you feel would be the best action in the interests of hon. Members seeing those of their constituents who have come on the demonstration which, in reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I personally accept was a demonstration which was planned as an orderly demonstration. Everyone, I think, accepts that. Everyone wishes it to be so. Everyone wishes as many as possible—we all know the difficulties—of those who wish to see their Members to be in a position to do so.
I would have hoped that it might be arranged, and that it might be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to consider how better arrangements might be made so that those constituents who wish to see their Members could be in a position to do so.

Mr. Heffer: As I was the one who originally raised this question in the House this afternoon, I should like to make it absolutely clear that once the mounted police were brought in that was regarded, as everyone knows it is in demonstrations, as a provocation and that it was at that stage that the matter got entirely out of hand.
I went out and invited through six people from Liverpool. The last one

who came through was grabbed by his hair by the police and has been incarcerated in a room in this House for the last half an hour or so. I do not know what has happened to that worker. I inquired from those who came through whether he was from Liverpool and they said that they did not know him personally but that he had marched all day, and those workers have marched from Euston to Tower Hill and from Tower Hill to here this afternoon.
I wanted people from Liverpool to come in to see not only myself but other Liverpool Members of Parliament. I want to ask what precisely is going to be done in relation to this sort of thing, because the provocation was such that a peaceful demonstration turned into something quite the opposite. In these circumstances I really think that this House must pronounce on the future of demonstrations of this kind coming to the House. I should like to know now what is to happen in relation to those other workers from Liverpool, the Secretary of Liverpool Trades Council, and Alderman Bill Sefton, who came with a letter to me. They have not been able to get into the House. I think that this is most regrettable, and that something must be done now to clear up the position.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I did not hear the opening comments on this second occasion that this matter has been raised. I have been watching from a window in the House what was happening outside, and I had a very clear indication of what was happening. From what I saw there can be no question at all that the police horses provided no provocation. They were handled in an expert way which was most helpful indeed. As regards hon. Members having their constituents inside this House, I saw the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) go from the House and actually bring six people in, and he did it properly. I saw the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) walk out of the House into a clear space which had been provided outside the House—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am on a point of order. I am telling the House what I saw and what I saw was a demonstration which, clearly, started peacefully, but which did get slightly out of hand. I saw


the police, both on horseback and on foot, deal admirably with it, and within something like 5 to 10 minutes clear St. Stephen's entrance to enable hon. Members to collect their constituents and bring them in. That is what I saw.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to the point of order. I wonder if I may help the House. I am perfectly prepared in my capacity as Leader of the House, responsible for helping hon. Members of the House, to go to see exactly what is going on, and perhaps I might be accompanied by the Opposition Chief Whip, if he will agree. We can see what better arrangements we can make. Perhaps hon. Members will agree to continue the debate meantime. Perhaps I can be accompanied by the Government Chief Whip also. We will see what arrangements can be made satisfactorily to hon. Members. If they cannot be made, it will be for hon. Members further to criticise me. I think that is a reasonable proposition on my part.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the offer which has been made by the Leader of the House. I myself, along with a number of my colleagues, have just been outside. We have seen what is going on. The police in the main—there are far too many of them are doing a reasonable job, but I have had actually to pull up a constable, J 16—I give his number—for an action which I considered to be entirely unjustified. I have seen a number of demonstrators manhandled through that crowd in St. Stephen's entrance.
The point of order I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that a number of people have been arrested while attempting to meet their Members of Parliament. I ask you whether it is within the competence of this House to make an investigation into the arrest of those people in view of the Sessional Orders which we pass at the beginning of every Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think I can say at this point that I would personally be very much obliged if the Leader of the House and the Opposition Chief Whip would do straight away what they have suggested they might do. As far as the wider issues are concerned, of course there can be inquiries later. With regard to the position inside the Palace, I did

make inquiries, and I found that there were 2,000 people on the premises. That gives the size of the problem. Certainly one must do what one can to see that hon. Members have reasonable access to their constituents, and to see that law and order are maintained outside. As for the conduct of the business of the House, I suggest that the best thing now is for the two right hon. Gentlemen to do what they have suggested.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Speaker, I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he was in the Chair, the question whether the conduct of the police raised prima facie a breach of privilege. I put the issue shortly. The first issue is, is it prima facie a breach of privilege to stop any constituent coming to see his Member of Parliament at the door of the Palace of Westminster?
My second point is of some urgency and it will be too late to raise it tomorrow. Some of my hon. Friends have seen men arrested because they were trying to come into the House to see their Members of Parliament, and they will be brought before the magistrates tomorrow morning. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of urgency, perhaps not now but later in the day, to consider whether the arrest of these men is a prima facie breach of the privilege of this House. If it is, it would be wrong for the magistrates to proceed tomorrow morning, since all the men were trying to do was to enter the Palace to see their Members of Parliament. I ask you, therefore, to consider that second aspect of the submission perhaps later tonight and to rule on it at any rate before tomorrow morning.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. As is recorded in HANSARD, I explained to your Deputy what happened when I tried to talk to one of the men. This is not second-hand or hearsay evidence, and several hon. Members witnessed what happened. I saw the policeman twisting the man's arm and frog-marching him into Westminster Hall. I said, "I am a Member of Parliament and I wish to speak to that man". Notwithstanding that, more policemen came up and forcibly moved the man out. I said. "Let him go, I am a Member of Parliament. You are within the precincts of Parliament, and it is a breach of


privilege for you to do this unless Mr. Speaker gives you authority". Notwithstanding that, more policemen came up and attacked the man, and then Inspector Sims came along. I said, "Inspector, let that man go. I want to talk to him". My request was completely ignored, and the man was dragged down Westminster Hall, I know not where.
Is it in order for a policeman to arrest a person and drag him along Westminster Hall after a Member of Parliament has courteously asked permission to speak to him and been refused? I intended to take the man to a Committee room to talk with him. Permission was deliberately refused in the knowledge of who I was. You and I, Mr. Speaker, know the battles that have gone on for hundreds of years between the Executive and Parliament, and between the Sovereign and the Commons. We know why we have this privilege. It is not our personal privilege but the privilege of the people to come to discuss matters with their Members of Parliament.
Will you please see to it that the man—he was wearing a red shirt, and Inspector Sims will know who he is—is released, because it is not right that he should be arrested in the precincts of Westminster.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order. Is not the House entitled to an immediate ruling upon the question that our constituents who have appointments to see us are at this moment being prevented from seeing us, and on whether or not they have a right to enter the House when St. Stephen's Hall is virtually empty?
Having gone through an empty St. Stephen's Hall and questioned the police officer, I was told that nobody was being allowed in, and, if I wanted to see a constituent, I could go into the throng where assaults were taking place. As a result of this, I have lost an interview with the Ministry of Defence about a contract that will affect the livelihood and future employment of several thousands of people in Lancashire. This is the result of the police, within the precincts of the House, physically preventing me from entering the House and physically preventing me seeing my constituent.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, give a Ruling now, and not after these people have gone back to Manchester in an hour's time, on whether they can come into the Palace to see the hon. Members whom they have come to see on important matters affecting their employment? We understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not interested in their employment, but we are.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On a point of order. I am concerned that I should see my constituents who have notified me that they wish to see me here at a particular time. I wish also to verify what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has said, because I witnessed what occurred. I should like you to address your mind, Mr. Speaker, to the situation in which an hon. Member is placed when he sees a constituent being manhandled by policemen inside the Palace of Westminster. My hon. Friend pleaded with the police to let the man go, because he wished to talk to him. This is an extremely important matter for every hon. Member, including some hon. Members on the other side with their moronic minds.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. As I undertook to the House, in common with my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip and the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip, I went to St. Stephen's entrance and inspected the position there. I found that there was a queue of about 50 people still waiting to see their Members of Parliament. I was informed by the Inspector of Police that, because of the length of time some hon. Members were taking in Committee Rooms, there was some overcrowding, yet I felt, as there were only about 50 left, even if it meant overcrowding, that those 50 should immediately be admitted.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are thousands.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have, therefore, arranged with the Serjeant at Arms and the Inspector of Police that all the remaining people who are waiting to see their Members of Parliament will now be admitted to the House, and none of the people who were standing there will now be waiting. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman the


Opposition Chief Whip and I found. Perhaps he would wish to speak for himself on what he found.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I understand my hon. Friends' concern and respect them for it. Neither the Leader of the House nor I saw what is said to have happened, and we cannot speak of that. I confirm what the Leader of the House has said. I have just come back from the front of the House where about 50 people are waiting. As the right hon. Gentleman said, very wisely, it has now been decided that they should all come in forthwith. The rest of the people who were there—I gather some thousands—have now dispersed.
What has agitated some of my hon. Friends is what is said to have happened some time ago. I respectfully suggest that there could well be an inquiry into this matter, and I have no doubt that those concerned will take note of this suggestion. From what we have been told, the numbers are now under control and the 50 who were waiting are coming in. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that we on the Front Bench will do all we can to ensure that there is an inquiry into some of the things which have been said. I think it would now be right to get on with the debate, which is of great importance. I am obliged to the Leader of the House for the way in which he has handled the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I be allowed to intervene for a moment? I fully appreciate the importance of these matters and I will co-operate in seeing that there is the fullest possible investigation. These matters are very important and must be examined. Whether it is right to examine the matter as a question of privilege, as was suggested by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), I shall have an opportunity to consider, but it would be in the interests of the House and its privileges and in the interests of public order that these matters should be investigated. I hope, therefore, hon. Members will not persist too long in pursuing points of order.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept what was said by the Leader of the House and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey

(Mr. Mellish) about the current situation. I feel we should put on record that what happened—and I witnessed this myself—was that the stewards of the T.U.C. urged their members, because of the disturbance outside and because it looked as if there was going to be really serious trouble, to go to Central Hall. It should also be put on record at this stage that some of us intervened with senior police officers, who told us that they had taken the decision to clear the front of the House because they felt they had not sufficient facilities outside the House, which included the House of Lords car park. In consequence it appeared to many of us that the liaison between the Officers of this House and its custodians and the police outside was virtually nonexistent. Whoever gave the order for police officers to be used against a peaceful demonstration—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that both sides of the House will regard this as a serious House of Commons matter. I would ask the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) whether he is not now giving the kind of evidence which an inquiry might like to hear? What he is raising is not a matter of order.

Mr. Orme: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is right that these things should be said and, if necessary, they can be contradicted. I accept the current situation as outlined by the Leader of the House and confirmed by my right hon. Friend, but many hon. Members will press for the fullest and most searching inquiry.

Mr. William Molloy: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Molloy: It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to groan. They have not been outside. They do not know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. What is the point of order for me to decide?

Mr. Molloy: While I was trying to make my point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you did not hear some of the cacophonous cackling by hon. Members opposite. What I was trying to point out was that there has been a massive demonstration in London—[HON. MEMBERS:


"What is the point of order?"]—with the police themselves enjoying the demonstration all the way through London. Many of our constituents who are unemployed were coming to the House to lobby us and we had made the necessary arrangements. I went outside to see if the people who had come to see me would be allowed in. At one point, with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I stood at a window and watched what was happening. There was a reasonably orderly crowd and a large queue outside the St. Stephen's entrance.
Those people stood there in an orderly fashion for an hour waiting to enter the House. Not one could get in. The only way to get into the House of Commons to lobby one's Member was to take a chance, become unruly and be dragged in by the police. This was an absurd situation. If the control had been orderly and those people had been allowed in in batches to see their Members, we would not be facing the problem we are discussing now.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make two brief points. First, I am informed that some of my constituents are to engage in a Lobby later this evening at about eight o'clock. I hope that the situation can be resolved by that time. My second point is that this is the second time within a week that this sort of thing has happened. A similar situation arose last week when the students sought to lobby. I hope that this will not become a precedent.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I personally walked through the thickest part of this demonstration—in fact I strolled through it—but I did not see any of the troubles which have been mentioned. It was a well-mannered crowd. One person who had an appointment to see me at 5.30 must have come through the crowd, since I have the green card he gave me timed 5.31.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will have no more points of order this evening.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I think it will be as well to bring my remarks to a close as quickly as I can. I was pointing out

to the House the extent to which the tourist and travel "package" industry has expanded. We were discussing whether Thomas Cook had shared in this expansion. I hope hon. Members who are trying to listen to this debate will be able to hear me above the noise of the crowd that is dispersing.
I have been looking up the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and I draw to the attention of hon. Members House of Commons Doc. 298. I gather that only once has the activities of the Transport Commission been brought to the attention of a Select Committee in some 15 years. There has been no reference by the Select Committee to the activities of the Transport Holding Company or even to Thomas Cook since the 1962 Transport Act.
This brings me to the accounts at which it might be as well to take a brief look. What interests me in looking through the accounts of Thomas Cook and those of the Transport Holding Company is to see that there is no record of turnover of any of the activities within the Transport Holding Company. We know that the assets of Thomas Cook are of the order of £13 million, the current assets are about £4 million, fixed assets £6 million. It has been suggested that the property is undervalued.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no record of turnover in the accounts of Thomas Cook? May I draw his attention to the fact that last year the turnover of Thomas Cook in its travel business was £93½5 million, compared with £90½3 million in the previous year. Why does the hon. Gentleman make such a statement?

Mr. Osborn: I am reassured to hear that the hon. Member has accounts showing turnover. If the hon. Gentleman has seen the turnover, so much the better. My right hon Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has told the House a little more about the company. The turnover is between £260 and £270 million, which is made up of three components. We know all about this, but what we do not know is the performance over recent years—at least this information is not readily to hand, and the situation is difficult to assess.
In all the years in which Thomas Cook has been part of the Transport Holding


Company, and the Transport Commission before it, the Select Committee has not looked into its affairs. Parliament has not chosen to direct how Thomas Cook should or should not be run. This point must be borne in mind.
It should be pointed out that Cooks is planning to expand.
I have had drawn to my attention an advertisement which appeared in the Estates Gazette on 23rd October, 1971, headed, "Cooks want premises". This is expansion which is going on at the moment. It means that, although Thomas Cook has been going through a period of transition, whoever its future owners may be, there is every intention of looking ahead with optimism. That is greatly to be welcomed. Furthermore, a constituent of mine has written to me about changes to the branch of Thomas Cook in Fargate, Sheffield, where £30,000 is involved in a new building.
The point that I wish to make about that is that there is no Select Committee which is able to adjudicate whether this has been money well spent, and I consider that the type of activity engaged in by Thomas Cook is much better handled as a small unit outside the public purview where its performance can be judged by results.
The Leader of the Opposition has implied that many travel agents have reputations which leave much to be desired. That, too, is a matter which can be dealt with by this House. If travel agents are to expand their businesses, they must not fail to comply with the Trade Descriptions Act, and if they are to stay in business they know that they must deliver the goods—whether tour or travel arrangements—that they have advertised. These are matters which are entirely outside the point under consideration at the moment.
The remaining point is who may the purchaser be. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) that a small shareholding by interested parties, including B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., possibly with Barclays coming in, would not be unacceptable. The possibility of a foreign purchaser has not been ruled out. However, in my view, the company should go to private British hands. I hope very much that that will be the case.
This Bill provides a rationalisation and a balance between public and private ownership in the travel agency business. I welcome it and accord it my support.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) gave the game away: the party opposite is in favour of competition, but only English competiton. Thomas Cook must remain with good old John Bull in control.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I think I said that I should prefer to see that. However, I did not rule out the possibility of a foreign purchaser.

Mr. Pardoe: I neither prefer nor do not prefer. As a free trader, I have an open mind about where the competition should come from.
I had no intention of intervening in this debate. I remained in the Chamber merely to discover which way to vote. Nor do I have to declare any interest, either in the tourist industry or from the point of view of a contribution to the Tory Party.
From the two Front Benches, we have had two caricatures of political attitudes. From the Minister for Transport Industries we heard that here was a company, Thomas Cook, badly managed and with a very low profit. I do not think anyone will quarrel with that assessment. In fact, it is an assessment which gives added force to the view that over the years central Governments, both Tory and Labour, have demonstrated that they could not run a second-hand toffee shop, let alone a travel agency. It is a condemnation of the central Government rather than of the management of Thomas Cook.

Mr. J. T. Price: I can stand hostile statements, but how does the hon. Gentleman justify a silly statement like that? The Government, whether Tory or Labour, do not administer and run the nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman must know that industries which are under national control are not under the political control of this House. They are run by competent executives, by and large, and Thomas Cook is no exception to that process.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has enormous political acumen. He has just made the point that the Liberal Party has been making about the nationalised industries for the last 25 years, namely, that there is no public accountability whatever and that this House should have greater control of public enterprises than it has. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the point for me.
The Minister went on to say that he wanted to reduce the public sector. He tried to make out that this was a great philosophical divide between the two sides of the House. Coming the day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he intended to increase public investment in the public sector by £160 million or more in order to assist in solving the unemployment problem, I find the Minister's suggestion an extraordinary one.
Then we heard the attitude of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) spoke of Thomas Cook as though it was John Bull Ltd. more than Thomas Cook. The hon. Gentleman spoke of hiving off profitable enterprises as though that was a disastrous step to take, even though this company is not a profitable enterprise. One can say that its return on capital or its profit in relation to its turnover has been abysmal by any standards. The hon. Gentleman stressed how bad the management had been. I agree, and I find it incredible that such bad management should have been allowed to continue for so long.
The questions that I wish to ask are these. I accept that private capital would be helpful. There are disciplines which private capital introduced into public ownership would create, quite apart from causing a degree of profitability. But if private capital would be helpful in an industry of this sort, why not sell shares in public co-ownership? Why do we have this sterile argument between public and private enterprise? I find it tragic that hon. Members on this side of the House who speak for those who are involved in Thomas Cook as employees have not called for a new industrial partnership in the company.
Here is a classic case of a company which is at present owned by the State, albeit by accident, and of which the

Government wish to rid themselves. I cannot understand why it is necessary to go the whole hog the other way. There is a middle way. We could create in Thomas Cook a partnership along the lines of the B.P. solution: in other words, a partnership between the State and public enterprise.
Will hiving off improve the management? Is private enterprise always well-run? It would be a nonsensical proposition to suggest that it was, and the Minister came near to making it. With the example of Rolls-Royce and the long list of company bankruptcies before him, the right hon. Gentleman cannot back up his proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman also made the point that returning the company to private enterprise would encourage competition. But does private enterprise introduced into such an industry really encourage competition? I agree that it should do, and I should want it to, but we have the example in the travel business of the competition which exists on the cross-Channel ferry services between British Rail and Townsend Thoresen. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at their respective schedules of fares, he will see that for years there has been an extraordinary identification between the fares charged for carrying an identical car across the Channel by British Rail and by Townsend Thoresen. Only last August, the executives of the two organisations got together and fixed identical increases in fares to exactly the same levels. So far, the Government have refused my requests that this monstrous piece of price-fixing be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Shall we have the same situation arising in a reconstituted Thomas Cook? In my view, the chances are that it will be exactly the same.
To whom will the right hon. Gentleman sell the company? I do not expect him to say exactly who are the bidders. However, he has admitted that there are political restrictions on those to whom he would be willing to sell; in other words, it will not necessarily be to the highest bidder. What exactly does this mean? The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said that he would have no objection to British Rail being involved in a consortium to buy the company. May we be told whether the Government


will impose any limitation on the free bidding of B.E.A., B.O.A.C. or British Rail to buy the company?
The Minister's description of the ideal bidder for whom the Government are looking is an English company involved in the tourist industry. All the matters which he itemised portray a picture of B.O.A.C., B.E.A. or British Rail. I suggest that they probably are the ideal purchasers, even by the Government's standards. Unfortunately, they are in the public sector. That means that they would not accord with the Government's ideology, but they would accord with their reasons. Since the right hon. Gentleman described them as ideal bidders, although not in exact terms, if they make a satisfactory bid, will they be allowed to raise the capital to buy this company in the normal way?
The Minister also said that this company should never have been in the public sector. It is in the public sector, however it got there. Do we have a better alternative before us? Frankly, I do not believe that we have. Therefore, we might as well leave it where it is until the Government come up with a distinctly better alternative than they have produced in the Bill.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I will try to help the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). He told us at one moment that he had not made up his mind what he would do when the time came to vote and at another moment he said that he did not believe there was any better solution than the present position of Cooks. He has, therefore, decided already how he will vote.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had no real interest in what happened to Thomas Cook. He should have, because in the West Country tourism is the biggest single industry and employer of labour. We should be looking to a company like Thomas Cook to have done a great deal more than it has over the past few years, with the tremendous facilities at its disposal which it has built up over 100 years, to bring more overseas visitors to the West Country. If I can help the hon. Gentleman to make his decision, I ask him to bear this important point in mind.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman knows that when a Member declares that he has no interest, it does not mean that he has no political interest; it means that he has no financial interest. I suggest that he should declare what his financial interest is or has been in the tourist industry before making his speech.

Mr. Adley: Let us get one point clear. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not have a financial interest. But he now says that he has a real interest in the Bill. When lie began his speech, why did he admit that he had not thought of intervening in the debate?
I shall mention my interest in the tourist industry because for many years I have worked in it. Therefore, I like to think that I can speak from some experience. I have no financial interest in Cooks or any travel agency.
Time is running short. I welcome the Bill. It is an opportunity to utilise the assets which Thomas Cook has built up over the past 100 years but which have lain rather dormant in the last 20 to 30 years.
It is some time since the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) spoke, but I should like to take this opportunity to repudiate his unwarranted attack on the travel industry as a whole. We all know that a small number of companies in the travel industry, as in every industry, by their misdemeanours receive great publicity. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the travel industry, and the package tour industry in particular has in the last 15 years brought to millions of our constituents the opportunity to escape from their humdrum lives by travelling abroad and seeing places which, without the imagination of so many companies in the industry, they would never have enjoyed. Before casting aspersions on the travel industry as a whole, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that millions of people are grateful for the energy and enthusiasm with which so many companies in the industry have worked over the last 15 years.
I was particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about confiscation—[Interruption.] Is he disagreeing with his


hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis)? Perhaps he will tell us whether he agrees with his hon. Friend.

Mr. Bradley: My words are on record. I am responsible only for my own words.

Mr. Adley: As I recall, the hon. Gentleman was threatening those who may buy Thomas Cook that it would be taken back into public ownership without compensation. Those are certainly the words of some of his hon. Friends. I shall be interested to read HANSARD to see what he did say. I have been here throughout the whole debate and I understood him to say that. These attempts at confiscation will not stand his party in good stead when the time comes for the electors to have their say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) mentioned the way that Thomas Cook has unfortunately been left behind in the development of the travel industry over the last 20 years. It has remained the leader in size, but it has stopped leading the industry in ideas. Private enterprise operation of Thomas Cook can restore to that company the use of its size and experience to bring profitability to the company in whatever ownership it may be held in future.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, repeatedly called for a State travel industry. We have had numerous advertisements for the Prestatyn holiday camp. I do not know much about it. Perhaps under the plans of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East we may look forward at some future date to the establishment of Wilson's Tours whose slogan might be, "It is better to travel than to arrive."
Thomas Cook has not been fully exploited over the last 25 years. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked me to declare an interest. That was an attempt on his part to insinuate that I had some financial interest in Thomas Cook. Of course I have as a taxpayer. As taxpayers we all have a financial interest.
As a West Country Member I have an interest in the development of the tourist industry. I believe that Cooks has fallen down in the last few years because it has completely failed to make use of modern marketing methods which could have put it in an outstanding position in the world tourist industry. I believe that Thomas

Cook started is business in Loughborough—

Mr. Bradley: Leicester.

Mr. Adley: He started in Leicester and ran an excursion to Loughborough. Thomas Cook himself was an entrepreneur. In finally trying to convince the hon. Member for Cornwall, North to vote with us this evening. I ask him to look back at the history of Thomas Cook and the way that he started. He was the first man to put together a package tour. What my right hon. Friend is trying to do with Thomas Cook and Son Limited is entirely within the spirit of the man who started that business in the first place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Mr. Mason.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: First, I apologise to some of my hon. Friends—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. May I inquire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the rising of my right hon. Friend signals the winding-up of the debate? If so, I strongly object. The Standing Orders of the House do not require that the debate should finish at 7 o'clock. Some hon. Members have been sitting here during almost two hours of interruption of the debate by events outside the Chamber. I wish to make such dignified protest as I can that the House will not be satisfied with your agreeing to take the winding-up speech at this time—twenty minutes past six—when Standing Orders allow the debate to continue until ten o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is within my discretion whom I call. This signifies nothing whatever about the length of the debate.

Mr. Price: It is the usual signal.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to the point of order. I support the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), and all the more so because there are only two or three hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate and who, presumably will not make long speeches.
May I ask for an assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the right hon.


Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) insists upon winding-up the debate for the Opposition you will nevertheless call those back benchers who want to take part in the debate before the Minister winds up? That is all we ask.

Mr. Mason: As there has been a series of interruptions, and as I know from personal knowledge, having been here throughout the debate, that there are possibly only three or four hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, I am prepared to wait for another half an hour or 45 minutes before winding-up the debate for the Opposition, if both sides of the House will co-operate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Walter Johnson: I should declare an interest as I am an honorary national officer of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, the trade union which organises and negotiates on behalf of the staff of Thomas Cook and Son Ltd.
Since the Government have been in office, rumour has followed rumour about which undertakings were to be taken to the knacker's yard of free enterprise and dismantled for the sake of private profit. It is now clear that the decision that Upper Clyde shipyard was intended to go to the wall was taken even before the Government came to power and that other profitable sections of nationalised industries were receiving attention for the purpose of being hived off to the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Just how high the Government set their sights can be seen from the remarks of the Minister for Industry, who said:
The pubic sector should only be concerned with activities which cannot be done by the private sector.
In other words, it is all right for the nationalised industries to continue activities in which it is difficult for them to make a profit and to provide a social service but when it come to the easy sell, the profitable sections should be hived off. Perhaps we shall find out in due course just what is in the Government's mind, not only in relation to this Bill, but in relation to hiving off generally.
We are talking today about one section within the nationalised transport industry, Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. The proposal

outlined in the Bill is both unnecessary and unjustified. It cannot be defended even under the criteria put forward by the present Government for the denationalisation of this company, and hiving off is quite unnecessary. The change is not necessary in order to increase competition. The likely outcome of the major part of Thomas Cook being taken over by other travel agencies is a reduction in competition and the creation of a virtual monopoly. On the other hand, if Thomas Cook were sold to someone outside the travel trade there would be the danger of the company's suffering from a lack of expertise. We are all aware of the unhappy experience of many people who have saved throughout the year to go on holiday and have then had their holidays ruined by unscrupulous travel agents, but this is where Thomas Cook has been a shining light.
Reference has been made during the debate to Thomas Cook being a profitable organisation, and the fact is that it has consistently shown a profit, even if that profit has been low in relation to turnover. The Government stand indicted for selling off a profitable section of a nationalised industry for the sake of personal gain by the purchaser.
The decision embodied in the Bill will affect the livelihood of more than 3,000 people, many of whom have given a lifetime of devote service and whose efforts have gained for the company an international reputation second to none. It is without doubt the most reliable travel agent in the world. That is the reputation which has been built up by Thomas Cook, and now the Government want to break the company into small pieces and hive it off without any justifiable reason.
Other travel agencies have been handing difficult bookings to Thomas Cook to deal with because of their expertise, and the staff of Thomas Cook stand to lose considerably because they enjoy better conditions of employment than do other sections of the travel trade. There is no provision for the union to which I have referred to be consulted by the new owners during the crucial period immediately following the transfer of ownership. Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to give a guarantee that Thomas Cook will not be sold to any organisation which pays lower rates and offers poorer conditions of service than


those now appertaining in the company. That assurance is absolutely vital.
It is true that the financial results of Thomas Cook have been disappointing in recent years, but the fact is that the company has consistently made a profit and it is estimated that even in 1971, with all the difficulties which the company has had to face, there will be a surplus of about £30,000. I accept that that is a small return for the amount of turnover in so large a company.
I hope that the Minister will fully consult the T.S.S.A. on all aspects before the Government hive off the various sections of Thomas Cook. I hope, too, that the union will be given the opportunity to discover the kind of employers to which the staff of Thomas Cook are going. That information, too, is absolutely necessary.
At the Labour Party conference this year it was decided unanimously that a future Labour Government would re-nationalised hived-off sections of nationalised industries, such as Thomas Cook, and would do so without compensation. Would-be speculators should take warning. They will burn their fingers if they purchase hived-off sections of nationalised industries because, I repeat, a future Labour Government will renationalise without compensation. The Government should think again and drop the Bill forthwith.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for allowing me to take part in the debate and I shall be as brief as I can in the circumstances.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right, having found himself with the Transport Holding Company owning virtually only Thomas Cook, to wind up that company. There is no doubt that in the long run the fact that Thomas Cook is a public company, though not a nationalised one, will be good for the company and for the country as a whole.
Because of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and because of their criticism of the Bill, there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the public. They may have the impression that we think that Thomas Cook is not a very good organisation. It was, and it is,

unprofitable in terms of the money that it makes to cover the capital employed in the business, but it has many good qualities and it has done a great deal for the travel industry since the end of the war.
It is the only great British international travel company. Initially, it was the only company which carried out training in the travel business. Other companies are beginning to follow the example of Thomas Cook and, of course, the industry is now covered by one of the training boards. Cooks began it. Thomas Cook has given the industry as a whole a continuous flow of trained staff who have been vital to the growth of the business. It is the only British travel company which is big from the point of view of not only the issue of tickets and the arranging of tours, but the carrying out of banking arrangements. It was Thomas Cook which, through its leadership, originated the Association of British Travel Agents, which has grown immensely and has provided for the travel industry a stability and, I hope, a restraint against those who may seek to bring it into disrepute.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) was a little hard on the industry when he pinpointed those very few companies which occasionally let the public down. By and large, the industry provides a very good service to the public. This of course includes Thomas Cook itself. It was nationalised entirely by accident. The Government owned it after the war. The fact that we are denationalising it now will not harm it.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the staffs will not be hurt either through redundancy or through their pension arrangements. Denationalisation will provide an incentive to management. The company has some good management, particularly good middle management, and it will now have the opportunity to give that management the scope which it has not had in recent years.
Therefore, although it is no longer to be a nationalised company, it will still be a public company and a British company. When my right hon. Friend makes the company available, he must safeguard the currency aspect through a banking interest. He must try to avoid


a monopoly situation being created which it would be all too easy to do if the company were sold to an already very big company in travel. The company must stay in British hands, because it can do much to bring tourists to this country and, therefore, provide considerable export earnings.
The Minister should also seek assurances against stripping. If the assets are broken down to assist the company to serve the country better, that is fine, but to allow the stripping of assets to the disadvantage of the company would be wrong.
This company, although it will become a free enterprise concern, will still be able to provide for the country an advantage both to those who travel and to those who are employed in the business. It should secure the incentive of enterprising management and I believe that it will become an expanding company. I have no doubt that it will also be profitable. If it is really profitable, it will provide a sum for the Exchequer larger than it has been able to do in recent years. It will do this because it will be paying taxes just like any other company, and the Exchequer will get the advantage of that tax out of those profits.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have returned to the Chair because I was almost on the point of leaving the Chamber. I never like to remain here when I am bad-tempered, so I am fortified to see that the Minister of Transport Industries has stayed with us. Our proceedings have been considerably interrupted during the last few hours by more serious events outside. Without making any apology to anyone, because I was involved in those events at the beginning of the debate, I did not have the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). So what I say is entirely divorced from anything they may have said.
First, I am happy to see the Minister. He knows that I have a personal regard for him. I say that with the utmost sincerity. Therefore, I can say to his face and not behind his back that although I hold that regard for him as a man, I have

the utmost contempt for this sordid little Bill which he has brought before the House.
It is a strange circumstance, surely, that when we have 20,000 people demonstrating outside the House against an unemployment total of 1 million, when our neighbours in John Bull's other island across the Irish Channel are on the verge of civil war, when the Middle East may go up at any time because of the tensions there and when inflation is running away in this country to an alarming extent, the British Government have nothing better to do than bring forward a piddling little Bill of this kind to satisfy their ideological prejudice against anything which is nationalised.
Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have had to endure this sort of ideological debate many times over the last 20 years—[Interruption.] I do not want any assistance from South Worcestershire either. I notice that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has returned to the House and wants to announce the fact. I hope that he will make his speech on his feet and not make interruptions when I am speaking.
Against the background of the desperate world and domestic events in this country, I do not know how a British Government can justify occupying a day of parliamentary time with a little Bill like this merely to give satisfaction to the Primrose League, the old dames who finance them and run tea parties for them and all the spivs in the City of London who are looking for a few more chips to play with by denationalising a nationalised industry.
I have taken part in many debates about transport and on other occasions we have had some rational debates in Committee, when I have sometimes broken a lance with the present Minister and have always enjoyed a genuine difference of opinion. There is nothing to justify the Bill, however, and the apathetic speeches of Tory back-benchers this afternoon. They spoke as if they would not qualify even for a Sunday school league, let alone the Third Division. How anyone can be so small-minded as to make an ideology shibboleth of something which has been one of the most noteworthy pieces of public enterprise like Thomas Cook, I do not know.
Despite the statements which have been made, incidentally, the company was not nationalised by accident. It was nationalised by this House under the Transport Act, 1947. Otherwise the Bill would not be necessary and the change could be made administratively. I know that the Conservative Party must please its friends, the people who give it not only moral and physical but also financial support at election time. We know that when a Tory Government—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment need not rub his hands. It is a conventional attitude of the men in the City to rub their hands. When a Tory Government are in power, they know that loot is going and they want to get their hands on it.
This company enjoys a world-wide reputation. It is not losing money. It may not produce the sort of dividends which would be accepted in the City on a commercial basis, but I have never agreed, as a Socialist Member for over 20 years, that a balance sheet is the only test of a company's success.
The company has at least given good service. In every country in which I have travelled I have found that the company with an even higher reputation than American Express is Thomas Cook. Conservative hon. Members, too, have travelled the airlines of the world on occasions and they know that what I say is true. Thomas Cook has been well-managed and well-advertised and has had its offices in the right places. It has produced reliable services and has earned for this country a world-wide reputation.
I cannot understand the type of mind that believes that because something is nationalised it is bad, and because it is private enterprise it is good. That is complete nonsense. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) want to help me?

Sir G. Nabarro: Hurry up with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be better if hon. Members would refrain from making interruptions from a sedentary position.

Mr. Price: I am trying to make a vigorous argument as courteously as I

can but the standard of debate from the Tory benches has been pathetic.
We are under the pressure of great events outside: mass unemployment returning for the first time for 30 years, almost civil war in Great Britain and world tension at a record level in many trouble spots, including India and the Middle East. The international bankers, who are supposed to express the commercial expertise of the business community, are completely baffled in their attempt to provide a rational form of international exchange. The whole capitalist system is shaken to its foundations by the machinery it has created, unable to provide full employment or a rational system of exchange between nations and unable to prevent inflation. And yet, as a humble Labour Member, I have to listen to balderdash about those failures being due to the failure of nationalised industry.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) tried to damn Thomas Cook with faint praise. He said that it did not produce much profit, but he did not say that it produced a loss. Another young man who has been here five minutes, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), who I think was an executive in the travel industry and who may not be without interest in the matter, said that Thomas Cook was inefficient, that it was not carrying out its functions, and so on. Those statements are not in accordance with fact.
Conservative hon. Members are entitled to peddle their old-fashioned ware about the virtues of private enterprise and the wickedness of public enterprise but any intelligent man will see that it is complete nonsense to make such a distinction. Public and private enterprise, properly and efficiently run, must function side by side for a long time. I do not believe in a dictatorial system or one that gives complete monopoly. I have always said that.
Despite all the snide comments this afternoon, Thomas Cook had a £400,000 profit last year and a £1¼ million profit the year before, and in other years it did even better. I agree that it could produce more in terms of commercial results but I do not judge whether something is successful by the balance sheet alone, important though that is. I do not


run away from that test, but I am disappointed when little-minded commercial business men who may have been functioning as junior executives on a unit trust or in another sphere of public relations activity have the cheek to talk that kind of rubbish, which was out of date in the sixth form at my grammar school over 40 years ago. The House is getting too many such Members. I hope that we shall be able to bring them up to be more respectable citizens in due course.
I appeal to the Government for genuine answers to the question why Thomas Cook is being denationalised. Can it simply be that there are plenty of people with greedy eyes who helped fill the Tory war chest at the last election and who are constantly looking for new sources of access to land, the exploitation of which is the damnation of this country? Every site in our great cities, if it can be cleared of its buildings, whether Cooks' or anyone else's, becomes worth £100,000 or £200,000 an acre. That is where inflation starts, not in the mismanagement of Thomas Cook or any other nationalised concern. The capitalist system which Tory hon. Members defend has created these anomalies. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has left the Chamber because he is the most ideological of all Tory Members on these matters and can sometimes express himself quite forcibly.
I may have made my protest a little roughly but I have said what I believe. It is unworthy of the House to be spending time on hiving off the profitable sections of our nationalised industries and making greater problems for those who will have the duty of running those industries. I know from experience that nothing pleases a certain type of Tory Member, who perhaps is not typical—he may be uneducated or politically illiterate—than to go on to the hustings, write articles in the Press and make speeches at Primrose League meetings saying, "This great nationalised industry lost £X million of public money last year. It is your money that these wicked Socialists are losing." He never tells the public that the electricity and gas industries are making money and that but for the Tory Government's nationalisation of the atomic energy industry in 1954, we should have no atomic energy industry

because private enterprise could not provide the capital required.
If any hon. Member wants ideological arguments, there they are. I invite anyone who disagrees to sort them out. We have weathered many storms and faced them with resolution and fortitude, as Churchill used to say at the Dispatch Box. It is not worthy of the House to be trying to score little ideological victories for all the nitwits outside the House who are the camp followers of the Tory Party and who helped fill its war chest. We have better, bigger things to do. We must make the nationalised industries better if we can.
I have never stood in the way of efficiency. I have always supported it. One hon. Member constantly referred in his speech, which was very much interrupted by the trouble outside, to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, as though to imply that it supported the denationalisation of Thomas Cook. I am a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and I have been for some years. I have taken an active part in its work in all kinds of inquiries, including the inquiry—the first ever made by the House—into the affairs of the Bank of England, and I had the honour and pleasure of cross-examining many of the leaders of the financial world on these matters.
No hon. Member is entitled to insinuate that in some way the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries would support a Bill of this kind. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is composed on an all-party basis. It is not a piece of the Tory Party machine. It is part of the effective working machinery of the House of Commons. So I make my protest on that score, too.
I suppose I ought to stop now, but I have been thwarted a little today in not being allowed to get started. At ten o'clock tonight there will be the usual ritual. Hon. Members who have not heard the debate will hear the bells ring and go off into the Lobby to vote in favour of denationalising Thomas Cook. When they do that, let them just reflect that in spite of all the silly speeches which have been made in support of this stupid Bill today, not so very long ago our present Tory Government, who have been in office, with disastrous consequences for the nation, for the past 18


months or so, had to bring in a little Bill to nationalise one of the greatest private companies in the world, Rolls-Royce of Derby.
The nationalisation of Rolls-Royce was a bitter pill for the Tories to swallow. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), the Under-Secretary of State now on the Treasury Bench, was not personally involved in that episode. I assume, but I bet that the senior Minister concerned was not a very happy man. He had to ask the House to pass a Bill to nationalise that great international company, which was non-viable and which was declared bankrupt by the auditors appointed to investigate its affairs. It is one of the greatest trade names in the world and a famous company of which we are all very proud.
Now, having done that, as a little bonus, so to speak, to their disappointed supporters who found that pill difficult to swallow a few months ago, the Government are giving them back Thomas Cook so that someone can play about with it, perhaps alter its structure and make a bit of profit out of it.
I have talked more of general principles today because I thought it right to do so on such an occasion, but to revert now to the specific question of Thomas Cook I warn the House—I speak entirely for myself, as a private Member—that those hon. Members who have expressed the hope that this company, once it is taken back by private enterprise, will remain British have no ground for that hope. Once the shares go on to the international stock market, no one in the House will have any power to make conditions or control the source of investment.
The Minister for Transport Industries is no novice in the House; like me, he has been here a long time. It completely beats me how he can seriously deploy the argument that the nation will be better served by private enterprise and that transport undertakings—I think that this is how he put it—should be concerned only with transport and not with all the odds and ends of items like hotels, tourist services and the like, which ought to go back to private enterprise.
Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered how British capitalist finance works? Has he never heard of the conglomerate company or the holding company?

Has he never heard how the Companies Act is so manipulated by clever accountants and lawyers that a man like me, who is very interested in these matters, finds it most difficult, even with the services of our Library stocked with one of the most extensive collections of references in this country, to ascertain who really owns what in the business world? The conglomerate and holding company technique is used for all sorts of purposes.
If it is regarded as sound practice in terms of good commercial management for a great company—I shall not name any because I might give the wrong impression, though I could name quite a few—holdings ranging from, say, pen-nibs to tractors, aeroplanes and goodness knows what else, why should not the same principle be applied in nationalised industry? If it is good commercial practice for great companies to have all manner of diversified activities and alternative sources of revenue available to them, all under the umbrella of the great conglomerate, why should that principle not apply to a nationalised industry which is serving the public good and is at least answerable to the House in the final analysis in a way the others never are?
I have, perhaps, taken longer than I should, but I have waited a long time. I fear that this will be only the first of many similar exercises in handing back national undertakings to private enterprise for private exploitation. The House is being asked to do something against the best interests of the country. Such an exercise should have no kind of priority in face of the great problems of unemployment, inflation and the threat of civil war now confronting the country.
I beg the Government to have second thoughts about it. If they do not, I warn them, on my own responsibility, that if this industry and others which are targets for the handling over of loot—yes, loot; that is the right word—to the commercial friends of the Conservative Party are denationalised, I for one, if I am still here—many of my hon. Friends will do the same—will insist that any future Labour Government not only take them back but, against all our better instincts, take them back without compensation.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: I, too, welcome the Bill, for I regard it as the Government's first step


in what I hope will become a large-scale programme of denationalisation.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Including Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Rost: I had intended to say something about the profitability, or lack of it, of Thomas Cook, about the way profits have fallen from £2 million in 1965 to a current year's level which is questionable, to say the least—and all this against a background in which the travel business has been one of the most rapidly expanding in this country, and when other firms in the business have grown rapidly not only in profits but in their turnover and in their assets. But time does not allow me to present that side of the picture in support of the denationalisation, and, in any case, many of the points have already been made in the debate. I shall, therefore, say a few words about one aspect of the matter which concerns me, namely, the proposed method of denationalisation.
The case for denationalisation is overwhelming, but I am not happy about the method by which, apparently, we are to sell the Holding Company and Thomas Cook. We have been told that it will be sold as a going concern. It is a going concern. It is a self-contained viable commercial unit which is able to stand as an independent unit, and it is for this reason that I regard the so-called hiving off principle as undesirable and politically unpalatable. The proposed method of selling it off to a syndicate or, perhaps, another firm in the travel business, or perhaps a bank, is unjustified. Moreover, it is undignified. The picture one gets from Press articles over the past few months of eager buyers hovering in the background like a pack of wolves in for the kill is unpalatable. We should do something far more noble. The denationalisotion should be effected by a direct sale to the real owners of this business—the public.
I see no reason why Thomas Cook should not be put on the market with a proper prospectus. As it is a desirable morsel, it has great potential, which everyone can see—hence there are potential buyers—as a self-contained viable unit. It offers the Government an ideal opportunity to launch as a pilot scheme the first stage of what could be a major denationalisation programme. I suggest

that the formula which should be seriously considered by my right hon. Friend is that the company is offered in the normal way through the Stock Exchange, with a prospectus, for public subscription, and that first, Thomas Cook is transferred to a nationalised industries realisation agency, and that then approximately 25 per cent. of the capital is offered by tender to the highest bidder, which would be an institution or a merchant bank. This 25 per cent. to be offered by highest tender would then provide some institution or merchant bank with the incentive to inject commercial and financial management. But the balance of the capital, 75 per cent., should be offered for sale to the public by subscription.
The price at which the shares ought to be offered for sale to the public should be at a substantial bargain level to ensure success. To make it quite clear that the offer would be for a sale at a bargain price, allocation should be strictly limited to not more than £100 per family, and, if there is over-subscription, as I believe that there would be, the allotment of shares should be even less than £100. Employees and staff should receive preferential allocation to provide management incentive.
Moreover, I suggest that there ought also to be provision for instalment purchase for those families that cannot afford even £100 worth of allocation. I do not see why an instalment purchase scheme should not be adopted through the Pay-As-You-Earn system. This formula for denationalisation has been successfully employed in Germany, where nationalised industries such as Volkswagen and Lufthansa have been denationalised on the basis of a small subscription on a strictly rationed basis. To avoid abuse, those receiving small allocations at bargain prices should have a restriction on sale, perhaps, for three years, or at least, if they wished to sell within a three-year period, they should be obliged to pay full capital gains tax on any capital gains that arise on their holdings.
I have not time to develop this thesis, this formula for denationalisation, which has proved successful in Germany, could be adopted in Britain for other denationalisation in easy stages. By following this formula we can create genuine public


ownership under private enterprise management, and we can offer employee-identification through part-ownership—a desirable objective—and at the same time we can provide a profit incentive to the management which would have the 25 per cent. stake. Not even the most doctrinaire of hon. Members opposite, if they were ever in office again, would dare expound an expropriation of shares in such a denationalisation because, by threatening to take over again the small holdings of a massive number of shareholders they would be hitting probably some of their supporters, the employees of the company and the general public.

Mr. James Lamond: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rost: No, I must conclude because I have promised to keep my remarks brief. I urge the Government not to miss this opportunity. Those who try to argue that denationalisation is not practical because no one would be persuaded to buy the industries could be proved wrong if we adopted this formula or some adaptation of it. We can reap economic and social rewards and, at the same time, achieve denationalisation by a formula which would be politically acceptable.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am sorry that some hon. Members have been inconvenienced by a series of interruptions during this afternoon's debate, which did not enable us to conclude as quickly as we should have liked. Nevertheless, 11 hon. Members have spoken and I am obliged to hon. Members opposite and to my hon. Friends for co-operating towards the end.
The Bill heralds the indiscriminate carve up of the profitable parts of public enterprise. We have had other hiving-off Bills before this one, but this is the most important hiving-off Bill to date. It mainly concerns Thomas Cook and its 5,000 employees. It is a firm of undoubted international reputation, with a total travel business amounting to £93½ million last year. It is transacting business throughout almost 500 offices in over 50 countries. It is synonymous with travel almost everywhere in the world, and it has become a famous international household name.
The company's reputation for good will and honesty in trading has been recognised by everyone who has travelled internationally, and it has been recognised particularly by many of the international organisations, among them the United Nations Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O., the World Health Organisation and the I.M.F., who entrust Cooks with all their worldwide travel arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) as president of the union with the membership involved, dealt with the company's activities in detail, and I shall not repeat them. It is worth while repeating to the House that its total travel business is £93½ million. It has travellers' cheques sales of £91 million. It managed an accumulative profit before tax, from 1965 to 1969, of nearly £7 million.
Although many hon. Members opposite have talked during the debate about the profit not being enough, profit motive is not our guiding light in life. I should have thought that public service came into this. Nevertheless, the company has held its head above water and has not had constant losses. But of those figures, what rich pickings there are now available. We can see the frantic rush there now is to pluck Cooks back into the private sector. There is a consortium of travel trade operators involved. Horizon Holidays has taken an interest. So has Global Holidays, subsidiaries of Great Universal Stores; Clarksons, subsidiaries of Shipping and Industrial Holdings; Trafalgar House Investments' holiday package fleet, Cunard, Lunn-Poly and Sunair; the Thomson Organisation; and American Express. All these are now queueing up to make their bids for this big plum that is about to fall out of public hands.
Of the publicised interested bodies two have already financed the Tories war chest in the past, as one of my hon. Friends said, and two of the bankers already publicised, Hambros and Kleinwort Benson Lonsdale have poured thousands of pounds into the Tory coffers in recent years. We shall be watching their bids with interest in the next few weeks.
It goes without saying that I utterly deplore this hiving-off operation. If the Transport Holding Company is to be


wound up, Thomas Cook could have been transferred to a joint B.O.A.C.-B.E.A. charter and travel service and could have provided us with a great international travel industry which would have out-rivalled American Express. That possibility should have been considered.
The right hon. Gentleman bathed in the sunshine of the beams from all his hon. Friends as he embarked upon this denationalisation Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us to what extent B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be allowed to bid. How will the sale take place? What is the tendering practice? What rules have been drawn up for these hiving-off operations? I hope also that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House that this sale will be conducted in the most open and public way with full exposure of all assets, liabilities, turnover, and so on, and full information about the bidders.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman gave some undertaking to the effect that there would be no foreign takeover. We know that American Express is involved. What conditions will be imposed upon the sales? Will the Government sell it as a whole or in parts? Will those who receive it be allowed in turn to sell it off if they wish?
On the general theme, there does not seem to be any general policy or clear guidelines for the House or the threatened nationalised industries about which peripheral activities are to be hived off. What are the criteria governing the Government's approach? The Minister for Industry has said that by and large the public sector should be concerned primarily with those activies which cannot be sensibly done by the private sector. That is no test. It is just an assertion, by which the hon. Gentleman means that private enterprise wants only those that make a profit.
The Government cannot use the argument either that it will increase competition; for if an ancillary goes to a similar producer or firm competition is lessened, and if it goes to anyone else competition remains the same.
That answer is party political dogma. It is a trend to satisfy influential friends. In doing so, so far no good explainable reason why the Government are creating havoc and despair among large sections

of public industry by hiving off has been given.
I will explain why the general policy of hiving off is doing harm. There is, first, the question of Government time and the time of chairmen of boards in denationalisation discussions—meetings with chairmen of the boards, board chairmen meeting their members, Cabinet and Cabinet committee time, the preparation of Bills and orders, then the introduction of the Bills, legislative time, and so on.
What about the major reviews which are taking place—the major reviews of the activities of the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation's ancillary activities? Lord Melchett and Derek Ezra must be in constant discussion and argument with civil servants and Ministers. They are absorbing valuable working time and energy which should be devoted to solving many of their own present problems. What proportion of their time at present is being diverted to defending the hiving off of chemicals or brick production instead of their being allowed to concentrate on steel and coal production?
So there is, first, a major diversion of time and endeavour.
Second, nationalised industries are always in the straitjacket of constant Government torture. I still think that there is a case for their being granted more commercial freedom; but Governments control their borrowing, their investment and their prices. They are riddled with parliamentary inquiries such as Select Committees, borrowing powers Bills and Parliamentary Questions. Now on top of all that, they have the constant anxiety of the threat of hiving off.
This is bound to affect their financial targets. Indeed, setting financial targets for nationalised industries at present does not make sense, because one hiving-off operation of a profitable subsidiary can make nonsense of the target. Therefore, targets must at all times be a constant worry to a nationalised board.
Third, it is bound to demoralise the management of nationalised industries. It will curb the spur to efficiency; because, if ancillaries that are profitable are likely to be hived off, it will be a positive disincentive.
The National Coal Board runs a contracting industry. There would be


catastrophic social conditions if it collapsed. It is aided and abetted by some of its ancillary operations. Some of them are on an expanding basis, which helps boost the morale of management.
Some fields of peripheral activity, such as fluidised bed experiments for power stations and chemicals of the N.C.B. and special steel work of the British Steel Corporation, or hovercraft development by British Railways, are very new developments. These are the pathfinders in industry. Their industry's growth may well depend on them. If they are cut off, the feelers for future growth are hived off and the industry will die or, as the Government seem to want it, leave behind islands of profitless inefficiency. The result is bound to be loss of morale, loss of key management, and failure of technical development.
The fourth reason why the policy is bad is that the publicity and the Government's known sympathy with the policy of hiving off invariably lead to poor prices being obtained, and private investors make capital gains at public expense. The reasons are, first, that the price is likely to lower because the ancillary is being cut from the benefits of its parent undertaking. There is also the growing desire in the Labour Party for a future Labour Government to re-nationalise and not compensate. That, too, has an effect on price.
Those ancillary activities which are in the course of developing and for which, therefore, there is no established record of profit, will not fetch much of a price. One or more of those factors adversely affects the price levels. The worst case of all was that of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The routes were just hived off. It was a give-away to private enterprise with no compensation. The nearest forthcoming analogy I can think of would be if there were difficulty in developing the commercial radio stations and the Government decided to hive off the present local B.B.C. stations: there would be no payment to the B.B.C. for establishing and developing its stations.
For all those reasons, I urge the Government at least to issue a White Paper or to make a major policy statement on their hiving-off intentions. Irreparable

damage has already been caused in our major publicly-owned industries.
Better still, the Government should stop this witch hunt against nationalisation and the constant pilfering of the public purse. Their disgraceful methods of reviews of subsidiaries, calling for a list of their activities, is leading virtually to a forced sale of assets at knock-down prices. If any public corporation assets are to be sold, it should be done as a result of normal commercial practices. The Government seem to be acting like an ogre, breathing down the necks of State subsidiaries and forcing them to sell too quickly and too cheaply.
I well remember the case of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., because they were the first to suffer. This was a case of confiscation without compensation. It was an act of unparalleled political dogmatism. Everybody concerned has been warned, and this will apply generally to other acts of hiving off in that manner, that it is our intention to retrieve those routes and claw them back without any compensation. That is not as narrowly doctrinaire as hiving off or confiscation, because they will have profited in the meantime. Caledonian-B.U.A., on average profits, because the routes themselves were making profits of £¾ million to £1½ million a year, could on those routes alone and the profits there generated make £3 million to £4 million before we enact the clawback procedure.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what view the then Minister will take of the views of the staff who will not want that kind of disruption, in addition to the views of the management who will have done commercially better?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge is very narrow in this sphere. He must know that, for example, B.E.A.'s and B.O.A.C.'s rates or pay, hours and general conditions of work are well in advance of the private enterprise airlines. The workers in these State Corporations do not want to be clawed out of the public and into the private sector, and that will apply when we return to office.
I strongly deplore this new narrow, doctrinaire technique of hiving off. Across a very broad section of public industry the threat of hiving off profitable parts is very real. The uncertainty is worrying


to all concerned. Efficiency and profit levels are being affected because, after a third degree period of torture, a Bill is introduced or an order is laid and then the speculators move in to buy at unreal, knockdown, low-price levels.
This is at best a rotten technique. At worst it is soul destroying for thousands of workers. It is morale destroying and disheartening for the managements of publicly-owned industries. But the evil of the system is that the State assets of our publicly-owned industries are being virtually given away to the gods of greed in our society.

Mr. Dan Jones: Would my right hon. Friend care to substitute "devils" for "gods"?

Mr. Mason: The Conservative Government have lurched very much to the right. There now seems to be a dictatorial streak in their philosophy, epitomised by confiscation without compensation. It is thoughtless, it is without conscience and it is blundering on without any thought of the ultimate consequences. Apart from the trail of misery and harm it is doing to large sectors of British industry, it is obviously oblivious of the counteraction; the reaction—the quiet, simmering revolution it is provoking and which, in return, is demanding a lurch to the left.
If confiscation without compensation is their creed, if damning the name of public sector success before hiving oft, thereby enabling them to sell cheap to their friends, is their religion, then let them beware, and all who consort with them in these practices, that a future Labour Government—and I warn my right hon. and hon. Friends and those who aspire to occupy the Treasury Bench opposite—and the Parliamentary Labour Party and our supporters in the country will strongly demand that the public sector he increased, that their powers against hiving off be strengthened and that all who have been harmed in this series of narrow doctrinaire acts should in some way have the satisfaction of their dues.
It is now incumbent on Her Majesty's Opposition to start compiling their logbook—recording every denationalisation act, noting which firms have been involved and documenting the total sums of public assets that have been filched, ear-marking

in particular those that have been confiscated without compensation.
It is the duty of the Opposition in any democratic society to warn the Government of the day that if they overstep the mark—the dividing line between democracy and dictatorship—then we must, on behalf of the people, try to safeguard their interests and, given power, take steps to redress the imbalance. [Interruption.] Confiscation without compensation is an act of dictatorship which the next Labour Government will certainly have to redress.
The sum looks something like this: they have pinched from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. £6 million worth of routes; already 206 State brewery pubs, State assets valued at £4 million, have been hived off; the Transport Holding Company's subsidiaries of Skyways and Lunn-Poly and the State's share in the Penarth Dock Engineering Company have all gone; on North Sea gas licences, our proviso that the nationalised industries be involved in the new consortia no longer applies; the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company is being hived off and now Thomas Cook is being thrown to the speculative wolves.
Yet to come are the results of the major reviews of steel and coal. They have not been completed. Decisions are awaited on the retail and repair activities of gas and electricity. Many areas are still threatened and the file is mounting. The logbook looks like being thick.
We cannot agree with this Bill. We cannot condone this Measure. It is sheer unadulterated political dogmatism. In asking my hon. Friends to vote against it, I give warning that every hiving off operation of this kind will be closely scrutinised and, where we deem it necessary, the operation will be logged and on return to power we will claw back those plundered assets once more into the public purse.

7.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The expression of great good humour on the face of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) as he resumed his seat demonstrated quite conclusively that not even he took seriously his effusion.
I have always thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a somewhat moderate


fellow. Having sat through the whole debate, nothing has struck me more forcibly than the contrast between the lucidity of my right hon. Friend's opening speech and the way in which the right hon. Member for Barnsley lashed himself into a not very convincing display of indignation about havoc, despair, straitjackets and torture. One can only conclude that he is not certain of being elected to the Shadow Cabinet.
On one thing the House has been agreed, namely, that the post-war generation has seen a virtual explosion in international travel. Out of this explosion huge revenues have been generated and handsome profits, not least for our balance of payments, have been earned in foreign exchange.
Against that flourishing background the House might expect that Thomas Cook Limited would have reaped a valuable harvest. It had Europe virtually to itself at the end of the war. It had a large float of working capital and the firm possesses some of the choicest real estate and some of the best sales locations in most of the world's major capitals. I am sorry to say that in spite of those advantages, Thomas Cook has expanded more slowly and has earned a far lower rate of return on its capital than have competing firms in the private sector, whether in this country or abroad.
The most relevant comparison is perhaps with American Express which, starting out from well behind, has now left Thomas Cook utterly outdistanced. Exact parallels are hard to draw, but the two companies' interests are sufficiently alike to enable one to compare their overall experience during the last few years.
Since 1963 Thomas Cook's profits have had their ups and downs. Between 1963 and 1967 they fell by 43 per cent. while American Express doubled its net income and earnings per share. From 1967 to 1970 Cook's profits went down a further 50 per cent. while American Express diversifying itself, increased its net income by 50 per cent. In the first nine months of 1971 the net income of American Express went up by a further 25 per cent. and it is expected to reach 100 million dollars in this full year. In contrast. I regret to say that Thomas Cook will find it very hard indeed even to stay out of the red.
So much for the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Barnsley that this is a plum. It has a vast potential but it has not been adequately managed within the public sector. Therefore, on this basis, I think I can say—

Mr. J. T. Price: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well why I will not give way to him.
On this basis, I think the House will agree that Thomas Cook as an enterprise has gained very little from its long, if incidental, association with the State. Neither its business, its management nor its employees have gained from nationalisation. The House might find this disappointing result acceptable if the State for its part had gained from the relationship—if the taxpayer, for example, had won some countervailing social advantages for any losses which have been made. But there are no such social advantages.
I hope that hon. Members opposite are not seriously pretending that there is some all-embracing social reason why the booking of tickets to concerts or the cashing of travellers' cheques should be conducted by a State-owned firm. The package tour business has its place. Indeed, many hon. Members, myself included, have found package tours excellent value. Unlike hon. Members opposite, however, I have never been able to persuade myself that all-in package tours are one of the commanding heights of the economy.
I come now to the arrangements for the sale. The Transport Holding Company will be seeking, with the advice of its merchant bankers, to get the best possible bargain. It will be selling Thomas Cook as a whole. Under Clause 1(1), however the sale will require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and under Clause 1(2) he could, if necessary, issue directions about the method of sale. In giving or withholding his consent, he will have uppermost in his mind the overall national interest, in particular the interest of the taxpayer. His consent will not be forthcoming unless the Transport Holding Company is able to obtain a high price for these potentially valuable assets.
To put it in words of one syllable, Cooks is not going for a song. Nor is it


going to what hon. Members have been pleased to call as asset-strippers' paradise. On the contrary, we shall ensure that it is sold only to reputable concerns able and willing to carry on and develop its national and international business. I was asked whether nationalised organisations would be able to join in the bidding. My right hon. Friend by no means rules out the participation of other nationalised concerns but this would have to be justified in terms of their existing main-line activities and would also have to depend on their financial position. I would not expect nationalised concerns would take more than a comparatively small holding, because anything other would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill.
The detailed arrangements for the sale are now being worked out by the Transport Holding Company in consultation with my Department. A full valuation of the pension schemes has been made by independent actuaries and similarly the property has been most carefully valued by independent valuers. The latter includes not only a valuation of Cooks existing property interests which, as they stand, may well be worth some £8½ million, but also of the potentially greater value that might be realised if, for example, the leasehold interest of the head offices in Berkeley Square were to be "married" with the freehold. Bidders will be expected to take full account of these potential "married" values.
Those independent valuations, together with the normal financial information, will form the basis of a prospectus which, should the House approve the Bill tonight, I expect will be issued by mid-December. Thereafter bids will be welcome from all comers, and I am confident that there will be many serious contestants. But Cooks is not for sale on the cheap. The Government would certainly prefer a satisfactory sale to be completed quickly but if, improbable as it seems, there should be no reasonable bids, my right hon. Friend will wait until there are.
I want to mention one particular safeguard for the staff, to which the bulk of the Bill is devoted. As far as pensions are concerned, the purchaser will be required either to maintain existing pension schemes or to institute and maintain schemes which are no less favourable.

This obligation is expected to form part of the sale contract but the Government expect to supplement it by means of orders made under Clause 2.
It will be necessary to bring into the Cooks schemes certain employees who are now in other public sector pension schemes and to remove from the Cook's schemes a number of people no longer employed in the group. In addition to this tidying up, the Government will also safeguard by order the accrued rights of existing pensioners and members of the existing schemes.
I do not expect that those orders will impose on the purchaser any significant liabilities beyond those implicit in the maintenance of the existing schemes, but in the unlikely event that any significant further liability arises, arrangements will be made for the Transport Holding Company or any successor body to reimburse the purchaser for the cost, assessed at the date of the order, of any such liabilities.
I turn now to job security. We intend to make regulations to cover compensation for any loss of office. This will be done on the basis of the established Crombie Code, which has been evolved in the public sector since the last war. We are, however, adding a new obligation. While the Transport Holding Company and its successors will be responsible for paying compensation to anyone covered by the regulations, it also intends to require the purchaser as a term of contract to indemnify the Transport Holding Company against any expenditure so incurred. This will mean that while the employee has a call on—a guarantee from—the public sector, the cost of any redundancy will fall where it belongs, on the purchaser.
Here indeed is a further answer to those who suggest that we are selling off a public asset on the cheap. The facts are exactly the opposite. I say to the staff that, on the one hand, their jobs and their pensions will be protected as effectively as it is possible and reasonable for them to be protected in any commercial venture while, on the other hand, they will benefit from the company's better prospects under a more progressive management.
Finally, I turn to the kernel of the argument between the two sides of the House. At the heart of the matter is the simple question, who does what? In our


view, the rôle of the State is best confined to doing those things which our people, whether as firms or as individuals, are not able to do for themselves. On the evidence there is little doubt that private industry can manage and develop a travel business like Cook's at least as well as, and probably a great deal better than, the various agencies of Government through which it has passed.
I have with me some brochures setting out a number of Cooks' more interesting tourist offerings. For example, under the heading "French Riviera", Cooks very wisely tells us that when one visits the Casino in Cannes,
you may not amass a wealth of francs with James Bond panache, but you can still live like a millionaire in Monte Carlo.
Then again, in its "Winter Sun" brochure it beguiles the potential customer with powerful advertising copy about how

nightly in the famed market square of Marrakesh, snake charmers, jugglers and acrobats perform.

I have no objection to any travel agency vigorously promoting its wares in this fashion but the House can hardly accept that it is a necessary rôle for the State to sell weekends in French gambling casinos or to use the taxpayer's money to promote visits to Marrakesh.

This Bill is a good one. It is good for Cooks, it is good for the taxpayer, it is good for the staff of the company. I believe that it will also prove to be good for what the whole House and the public as a whole want to see—the more rapid and profitable development of our travel and tourist industry.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 270.

Division No. 16.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Alison, Michel (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Allason, James (Hamel Hempstead)
Churchill, W. S.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhart, Philip


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushciffe)
Gorst, John


Astor, John
Cockeram, Eric
Gower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Awdry, Daniel
Coombs, Derek
Gray, Hamish


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cooper, A. E.
Green, Alan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cordle, John
Grieve, Percy


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Grylls, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Gummer, Selwyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Critchley, Julian
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bennett, Sir Fredrick (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davis, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Digby, Simon Wigfield
Haslings, Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Dixon, Piers
Havers, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hawkins, Paul


Body, Richard
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Boscawen, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hayhoe, Barney


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dykes, Hugh
Hicks, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Eden, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Edward, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hilley, Joseph


Braine, Bernard
Elliot, Cart. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Emery, Peter
Holt, Miss Mary


Briton, Sir Tatton
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Farr, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fell, Anthony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bryan, Paul
Fidler, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hunt, John


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. A.
Fortescue, Tim
James, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Foster, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fowler, Norman
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Mark
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. E. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Channon, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir, Donald




Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Kershaw, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Spence, John


Kilfedder, James
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sproat, Iain


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kinsey, J. R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kirk, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lambton, Antony
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sutcliffe, John


Lane, David
Osborn, John
Tapsell, Peter


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Owen Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tebbit, Norman


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Loveridge, John
Pounder, Rafton
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trew, Peter


McLaren, Marlin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vickers, Dame Joan


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Waddington, David


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maginnis, John E.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wiggin, Jerry


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Moate, Roger
St. John-Steves, Norman
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Molyneaux, James
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Money, Ernie
Sharples, Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Monro, Hector
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Younger, Hn. George


Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles



More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Morgan-Giles, Rezr-Adm.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Morrison, Charles
Soref, Harold





NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Albu, Austen
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Allen, Scholefield
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Ashton, Joe
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Delargy, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Barnes, Michael
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dormand, J. D.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Baxter, William
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Beaney, Alan
Concannon, J. D.
Driberg, Tom


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Dunnett, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
Edelman, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Booth, Albert
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Ellis, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, Dr. J. A (Whitehaven)
Evans, Fred


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davidson, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.







Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rankin, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Richard, Ivor


Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Freeson, Reginald
McCann, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank
Roper, John


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McGuire, Michael
Rose, Paul B.


Golding, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Gourley, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Rt. Hon. John (Deptford)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sillars, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Hamling, William
Marquand, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marsden, F.
Small, William


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Hattersley, Roy
Meacher, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Steel, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strang, Gavin


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomney, Frank


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt. He. John (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Janner, Greville
Moyle, Roland
Tuck, Raphael


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Urwin, T. W.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Murray, Ronald King
Varley, Eric G.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wallace, George


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oram, Bert
Watkins, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orbach, Maurice
Weitzman, David


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pardoe, John
Whitlock, William


Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kinnock, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lamble, David
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamond, James
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Woof, Robert


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prescott, John



Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mellish]:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 295.

Division No. 17.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)


Albu, Austen
Ashton, Joe
Baxter, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Beaney, Alan


Allen, Scholefield
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Barnes, Michael
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney




Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Paget, R. T.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pardoe, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)



Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cronin, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ewing, Harry
Mackie, John
Strang, Gavin


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Filch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)



Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Torney, Tom


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Tuck, Raphael


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Gourley, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William







Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Woof, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Antony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lane, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eyre, Reginald
Le Merchant, Spencer


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n Cdfield)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Awdry, Daniel
Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Balniel, Lord
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.


Batsford, Brian
Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
McMaster, Stanley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Robert
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brewis, John
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James




Money, Ernie


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Brian (Malden)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles


Carlisle, Mark
Hay, John
Mudd, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Cary, Sir Robert
Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner



Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Proudfoot, Wilfred


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon







Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Sutcliffe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wiggln, Jerry


Sharples, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sinclair, Sir George
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Younger, Hn. George


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sproat, Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the disposal of assets by and the dissolution of the Transport Holding Company, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) grants to the Company of such amounts as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and
(b) grants to any person to whom liabilities of the Company are transferred under section 53 of the Transport Act 1968 of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling or assisting that person to discharge those liabilities;

(2) the payment out of such moneys of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the designation of persons as transferees of any property, right or liability of the Company;
(3) any release of money owing to the Crown which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Sesion amending subsection (5) of the said section 53;
(4) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 29 of the Transport Act 1962.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE (SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEES)

8.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) and No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees), hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees)

Leave out line 3.

Line 19, after 'that', insert—

(i) for the consideration of any public bill certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland or of a public bill (or part of a public bill) ordered to be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the committee shall be so constituted as to include not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies;
(ii).

Standing Order No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees)

Leave out paragraphs (2) to (4).

The Motion gives effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the First Scottish Standing Committee. It will be within the recollection of the House that I undertook to allow more than the normal time for this debate, and I think it will be recognised that I am doing that tonight. I will briefly set out the purpose of the Motion, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker,


will reply at the end of the debate to answer the points raised.

The purpose of the recommendation is to make it possible in future for the First Scottish Standing Committee to have 16 members if that is decided to be the right number. It does not in any way preclude a larger Committee if that is decided through the usual channels.

The position in England is that a Committee of 16 is allowed, but the actual size of a Committee on any particular Bill is always settled through the usual channels. In my six years as Opposition Chief Whip I never once had any difficulty with the Government of the party opposite in getting the size of Standing Committee that I asked for. Any size I asked for was always conceded to me.

It is important to recognise that the Motion in no way says that every Scottish Standing Committee has to have 16 members and no more. It says that, like English Committees, it is possible to have a Committee of 16 if that is what the usual channels agree, but, equally, it is possible to have a larger one if that is the decision of the usual channels after consultation.

This seems to me to be a reasonable proposal. It is the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure. The First Scottish Standing Committee will be put in the same position as the English Standing Committees, and I have pleasure in commending the Motion to the House.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I will not pretend that we are not disappointed about this. We received a promise that the various points of order which were raised when this idea was first announced would be taken into consideration and that the matter would be placed before the House. The only part of that promise which has been kept is that the Leader of the House has brought the Motion before the House. We objected to the proposal and we still object to it.
The argument advanced by the Leader of the House, based on his experience as Tory Chief Whip when he found little difficulty in achieving the size of Committee he wanted, is not relevant. We know the background, which is the difficulty of the Conservative Administration

in conducting Scottish legislation. This difficulty arises not from the Standing Orders of the House, but from the position in which the Government have been placed by the decision of the Scottish people. Such a small number of Tories were elected by the people of Scotland that the Government are finding difficulty in manning Committees. This was spelt out last winter and we wondered what means would be taken to deal with it.
The Government have found a recommendation by the Select Committee on Procedure. I understand the reasons for the Committee's recommendation, but the reasons for the adoption of the recommendation have nothing to do with them and are concerned with the Scottish conditions that prevail. This recommendation does not only affect the Standing Orders of the House but is a challenge to the democratic decision of the Scottish people.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Nonsense.

Mr. Buchan: We all know that that is the reason. If the right hon. Gentleman says that no difficulty has been experienced in the past, why does he now seek to change the situation? There are two new factors. One relates to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure; the other lies in the political reality faced by the Tory Party in Scotland and in this House.
I do not accept that the Scottish Standing Committee is in the same position as other legislative Committees of this House. The Scottish Standing Committee is seen in the Scottish Press and by the Scottish people to be Scotland in Parliament. In the same way as, for example, the proceedings in this Chamber are reported in the English Press, proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee are reported in the Scottish Press. Unlike the other United Kingdom legislative Committees, which do not unfortunately impinge to any great extent on the public consciousness, the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee achieve that end. It is the one Standing Committee which makes the necessary democratic link with the public. Therefore, it is important that the size of that Committee should remain as it is.
Anybody who has served on a Scottish Standing Committee, as on any other United Kingdom Standing Committee, will know the difference. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not as good."] There is a very important difference, and I do not accept that it is not as good. The difference is that debates in the Scottish Standing Committee strike at fundamental matters of principle. They are much less legalistic, less technical and, perhaps, more political than the discussions in other Standing Committees. But surely the whole nature of the House of Commons is that it is a political body. If we lose this aspect of political discussion in Standing Committee, a whole dimension of our parliamentary democracy will have gone.
The weakness of Parliament at present is the difficulty of connecting with the world outside. Events can take place in this Chamber which hardly cause a ripple outside because of the difficulty of making contact. Hence the demand for the televising of parliamentary proceedings. The proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee make this kind of impact, and it is important that a broad section of the Scottish electorate and Scottish constituencies should be represented on the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the new procedure would put the Scottish Standing Committee in the same position as the other United Kingdom Standing Committees. He said that it would be for the Committee of Selection to decide. There are other criteria for the Committee of Selection to consider according to the nature of the legislation, but by and large it decides the matter on the relative importance of a Bill. Surely we do not need to look at a particular Measure to decide the size of a Scottish Standing Committee.
When non-controversial matters come before a Standing Committee which do not involve fundamental matters of principle, the Opposition co-operate with the Government, as happened last Session, in carrying such a Measure through without argument or difficulty, but such Bills tend to go straight upstairs. There are other Bills which affect the nature of Scottish society so fundamentally that we believe they should be debated on the Floor of the House. Therefore, we hope that the

Leader of the House will take back his Motion and amend it. He should remember that any matter involving a fundamentally important principle is always voted upon on the Floor of the House and this must be borne in mind when considering the work of the Scottish Standing Committees.
It will meet our requirements if the right hon. Gentleman amends the Motion to provide for a minimum of 16 members, except in the case of Bills which have been debated on the Floor of the House and voted upon, when the minimum should be 30 Members.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have looked at this matter. The problem is that under the present procedure of Standing Order No. 67(2), if 10 members object to a Motion to take a Bill upstairs and to refer it to the Scottish Grand Committee, the Bill in question must be debated on the Floor of the House. Therefore, it would be open to 10 Members at any time to ask for 30 Members on the Standing Committee simply by operating such a process. I thought that was the sort of procedure that hon. Members opposite were seeking to safeguard, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be very difficult to implement.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is now showing that there is a political reason behind acceptance of this proposal.

Mr. Whitelaw: No.

Mr. Buchan: It results from the difficulty which faces the Tory Party. It is strange that at this particular moment of time the House should lay aside the existing traditions of the House which, so far as I know, have never been abused or questioned and that we should now be asked to agree to this proposal. We must ask why it is being done.
I appreciate that some excellent work has been done by the Select Committee on Procedure, but on this matter there have obviously been a number of complaints and considerable gnashing of teeth—and teeth will be provided to the Tory Party during the coming winter. I realise that the Select Committee on Procedure feels that the practice in the Scottish Standing Committee should be in line with that in United Kingdom Standing Committees. But the Government have


forgotten the two important factors I have outlined. The first—and I repeat it—is that the Scottish Standing Committee is seen as a debating Chamber, in the same way as this Chamber is seen as a debating chamber in English eyes. The second factor is the difficult problem which faces the Tory Party over this issue.
For all these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to pass off this matter as a little local difficulty but will recognise the fundamental principle involved and will come forward with a suitable amendment.

8.20 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: It is quite clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Rendrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that the Scots are a very political body. However, I should point out that the Select Committee on Procedure looked at what is at present a nonsense, and now that it tries to put it right the hon. Member seems to impute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House some malevolent party content. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
If hon. Members look at Standing Order No. 62, they will see
Save in the case of the Scottish Standing Committees, the Committee of Selection shall nominate not less than sixteen nor more than fifty Members.
We were alerted to look at Standing Order No. 69 and we found that of the two Scottish Standing Committees, one is of the size selected and the other has the old, unreformed size of 30 with the additional Members. Quite clearly, there must be a change. At the moment, that is an anachronism. It was caused by changes in Standing Orders made during the last five years.
Until now, bringing in no party feeling, the House has always felt that there should be greater flexibility in the size of Committees. Bills differ very much in their content. In our Report, there is the entirely novel idea that we should go back to the 1880s and have Select Committees dealing with technical Bills or technical parts of Bills. Select Committees, of course, require very small numbers of members. That is why we believe that there should be greater flexibility, and I thought that the party opposite believed the same.

Mr. George Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much time the Select Committee spent on this question?

Sir R. Turton: I am afraid that I have no measure of the time. Certainly the Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing Committee stages. Hon. Members have to remember that the Committee was sitting for a whole year on the subject. If I had been asked to time with a stopwatch every occasion on which the Committee touched on the idea of Select Committees and the peculiarity of the Scottish Committee, the total would have been very difficult to evaluate. Certainly there was no hasty decision. I also remind hon. Members that the parties were nearly evenly divided on our Committee.
I approach this matter not from any party standpoint. I am anxious to try to make sense of the Standing Orders of the House. At the moment, the Standing Orders regarding Scottish Standing Committees make nonsense.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How?

Sir R. Turton: I have explained that already. They are contradictory.

Mr. Buchanan: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the consideration given to these matters by the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has also stressed the importance of flexibility, which we on this side of the House accept. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the importance of a Bill, having regard to the other Scottish aspects to which I have referred, could be determined by whether it was debated and voted upon on the Floor of the House? Would not that give the flexibility required?

Sir R. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman suggests that more and more Scottish legislation is to be debated on the Floor of the House, I, as an English Member and one who likes Parliament to be interesting, would deplore the change.
May I give the historical background as I see it? The old idea was that these Committees should be large in size. During the 40 years that I have been a Member of the House, I have seen


them dwindling. The major change affecting Scotland was made on 24th October, 1968, when the last Government proposed a Second Scottish Standing Committee and that in size it should have a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 50 members. That was a wise decision of the then Leader of the House—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Sir R. Turton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence, even though he is a former Secretary of State for Scotland. At that time the only objection came from the Liberal Party, which made a mild protest since it felt that if the number of members dwindled further, the small Liberal Party might be excluded completely. However, all Scottish Labour Members thought that it was a wonderful idea to reduce the numbers from 30 to 20, and the Conservative Party agreed.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to give us the history of this matter. However, he should get the history right. It was not the last Administration, but the Administration before that. Prior to that, there was only one Scottish Committee. It was a case not of reducing numbers but of instituting something quite new for a special purpose, to which we agreed.

Sir R. Turton: I am told that the Second Scottish Standing Committee was set up on 24th October 1968—

Mr. Ross: No.

Sir R. Turton: I thought that it was done during the period in office of the previous Administration. Perhaps I have my history wrong, or possibly the right hon. Gentleman has a different history.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Perhaps I might assist my right hon. Friend. A Second Scottish Committee was first set up in the early 1960s, when a Conservative Government were in office. The change to which my right hon. Friend refers, reducing the membership of United Kingdom Committees to 16, occurred more recently during the term of office of the Labour Government.

Sir R. Turton: I apologise to the House. Those facts must be correct if two Secretaries of State for Scotland agree.
The major change occurred on 19th December, 1968, when the Second Scottish Standing Committee was reduced from 20 to 16 members. Judging from the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, one would have expected loud protests. In fact, there was none. It was agreed to on the nod, and col.1698 of the OFFICIAL REPORT records that fact.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken account of the fact that the Second Scottish Committee normally is used for very different purposes? It is primarily the vehicle for processing Private Members' legislation, which is frequently not of such a controversial nature and does not require the extensive scrutiny which Government legislation involves. I was one of the beneficiaries of the setting up of the Second Committee in 1968 when I promoted a Bill concerned with the Highlands which met with agreement.

Sir R. Turton: I doubt whether Private Members' Bills are always noncontroversial.
I applaud the move of the last Labour Government to bring down the minimum size of Committees to 16 members. I suggest that these matters should be outside the realm of party controversy and that our aim should be to try to get good sense. When people outside this House look at parliamentary procedure, they want to see a sensible system.
Bills differ very much in degree. In the case of legislation like the Local Government Bill for England or the Housing Finance Bill for Scotland, no one would suggest sending it to a Committee of 16 members. I have seen many odd Scottish Bills about feu rents and similar matters. I cannot believe that it would be felt desirable for all Scottish Members to take up time on these subjects. I have no political animosity. I am trying to make our Standing Orders make sense. I am trying to see that the House does not waste its time and that back-bench Members are not serving on Committees in which, because of their technical nature, they have little interest.
Let us have big Committees where there is a lot of party controversy. If there is no great party controversy and the Committee is concerned with a technical matter, it is wrong to prevent the Committee of Selection appointing a Standing Committee with fewer than 30 members.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking as the Father of the House and Chairman of the Select Committee. Does he realise that he has already told us at least three things which are wrong? If he enters fiercely into the argument, he must not lose his non-partisanship by being wrong on so many occasions.
One interesting point which was made earlier concerned the amount of time spent on this proposal. Many other proposals have gone through without controversy. We are having three hours on what we say is a controversial proposal. In the report there is one small part on page 14 and another on page 15. In only one small section of the Select Committee's Report is there any reference to this controversy. Yet this side of the House takes great exception to what is being proposed.
As Chairman of the Committee, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is in the midst of a prickly situation? Perhaps he should reconsider what he has been saying. We feel that this attempt to reduce the size of the Committee is an attempt to curb the number of Members who want to speak on highly controversial Measures. It is not a matter of non-controversial Bills it is a matter of this recommendation allowing it.

Sir R. Turton: I realise that when I talk about Scotland I am entering a prickly field. I have long experience of the fact that Scottish Members have a curious kind of skin which emits prickles at the least movement. I want hon. Members to realise that we had evidence. The fact that we had evidence is shown in our Report. The Committee, which consisted of hon. Members from both sides, considered the question of Committees and the desirability of having small Committees on small technical Measures. I cannot understand why there is lack of confidence in the Committee of Selection.

Surely the Committee of Selection must decide the size of Committees, no doubt helped by the usual channels and by members of the Committee of Selection who are representative of the party opposite and of Scotland. Why are they so frightened of having the same discretion applied to their Committees as English Members have?
I doubt whether the intervention by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon)—that this is the only part of our Report which is controversial—was correct. Probably there are many hon. Members, some even from Scotland, who will find our recommendations—for example, on time limits for speeches—extremely controversial.
There is no party feeling in the recommendations. It is a mistake to have an exception to the general rule of flexibility in the size of Committees regarding one of two Scottish Committees. The House may think that the Scottish Grand Committee might be able to deal with some of the big Measures which really affect the constitution of Scotland, like the Common Market, and so on. I leave that to Scottish Members to argue, However, I beg them to try to appreciate that the First and Second Scottish Committees should have a degree of flexibility which, unlike every other Committee provided for in Standing Orders, they do not have at present.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I am sorry that I find myself in such disagreement with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I am sorry, too, that he took the Second Scottish Standing Committee as a means of arguing his case.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has indicated, there is quite a history in this matter. It was the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), when Secretary of State for Scotland, who introduced it. He did not introduce it without approaching the Opposition. I was part of what was called the "usual channels", and therefore, was conversant with what went on. One of the conditions laid down and agreed concerning the Second Scottish Committee


was the need to speed up certain legislation. Both sides agreed that one condition should be that no controversial legislation—not necessarily only Private Members' Bills—should be sent to that Committee. This was a device the need for which we all recognised. We did not want, when in the throes of arguing over some highly controversial Bill, to hold up legislation which we all agreed would be useful.
The Second Committee was set up at the request of the right hon. Member for Argyll, with our agreement. Subsequently, it was made a regular thing. It was set up initially for one year, the intention being to look at it again. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and others in the Labour Government who gave it a permanent basis. When it was put on a permanent basis, it was agreed with the then Opposition, who are now the Government, that the Committee would maintain its special form of being concerned only with non-controversial legislation, and when I was a Scottish Whip I would have done my best to ensure that that condition was observed.
When the second Committee was set up properly, in the sense of being made permanent, the question arose whether the Liberals could be represented. One of the factors which decided us on having a Committee of 30 Members was that in a smaller Committee it would not be possible to give the Liberals the representation which we wanted them to have. I am aware that the Liberals now have only three Members instead of five and that it may not be possible to maintain the Liberal representation on the Committee, but that was our concern at the time, and it bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that this Standing Committee is different from a United Kingdom Committee. It has so much more of the character of a Scottish Committee arguing Scottish matters. It is not the Grand Committee. The kind of work done in this Committee used to be done by the Scottish Grand Committee. All Scottish Members participated in debating the legislation during the Committee stage of the Bill, and it was in order to make the procedure less cumbersome that

the composition of this Committee was agreed to.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was opposed to the setting up of a Standing Committee, as distinct from the Grand Committee, but agreement was finally reached, and this Standing Committee was set up. But it was always understood that it was the Grand Committee cut down to do the kind of work which the Grand Committee used to do, but in so many ways doing it so much more cumbersomely.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House, after giving us an assurance that he would consider the matter with great care, is not even prepared to listen to our arguments.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. I have undertaken to make notes of what is said while he is away. It is his intention to hear as much of the debate as possible.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman knows how concerned we are about this issue. It was no gift to me to be offered three hours in which to debate the matter. I am not concerned with debating it. What I am concerned about is not to lose the right regularly to have a Committee of 30 Members. Our approach to the Leader of the House is very reasonable. We say that for most purposes we are prepared to accept a Committee of 16 Members, but that when we are presented with a Bill which we regard as very important or as controversial, and we know that so many more of our Members want to participate in debating it, there should be a larger Committee. That is all.
We want some kind of guarantee. We would have left it to the Leader of the House to decide the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was undertaking to consider the issue and to bring forward some Amendment to provide for what we want. I know that the Leader of the House will say that he is reasonable, and that when an approach is made to him he will agree to a larger Committee meeting to consider a Bill of importance, but that is different from what we want. We are dependent on the Leader of the House, or on the Government, saying "Yea" or "Nay". The Government will have complete power by this change in the Standing


Order. That is very different from having some kind of guarantee.
The nearest thing that we could find to this procedure was that which the House agreed should apply when there was an objection to a Bill being sent upstairs to the Grand Committee. The procedure is that the Members who object rise in their place to say that they object.
The right hon. Gentleman's objection to this reasonable suggestion is that it would be abused, but apart from odd instances when feelings have run strongly on either side, it has not been abused. We regularly send Bills to the Grand Committee for a debate on the principle unless there are strong objections. This is the right of the Opposition to say. "No, we want to debate the Bill in the House." No one wants to take away this right. Therefore, if we agree to preserve it, and if there is no risk of abuse in this respect, there should be none when we are concerned with the size of the Committee.
We would not be concerned with the size of the Committee when it was dealing with a non-controversial Bill. Perhaps once in a Session there is a highly-controversial Bill. Scottish hon. Members used to be and still are more nearly full-time than most Members. They are professional politicians with no interest except here, and it is sometimes very difficult to keep Members off a Committee. With a membership of 16, I presume that seven would be from this side and nine from the party opposite. Many of our Members would feel that, on perhaps the most important part of our duty, dealing with the Committee stage of a Bill, they would have no proper facility to represent their views.

Sir R. Turton: We have the same problem in England, of course. We have the same flexibility, with 16 as the minimum and 50 as the maximum. But, with a controversial Bill, the selection committee appoints 45 or 50 and not just 16.

Mr. Lawson: Not necessarily. This is not decided by the committee of selection but by the Government. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) knows the objection to this Measure. It stems from the Government's difficulties in manning the Committee. Some hon.

Members opposite have found it a tremendous burden. Most of us on this side enjoy those Committees. Because of this difficulty, there was an earlier attempt, persumably before the Committee of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton considered the matter, to reduce the size of the Committee. All I can see is a notice to the effect that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) submitted a paper, which presumably mentioned the size of the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Fife, East was so fed up on one occasion at having to sit through a Scottish Standing Committee that he refused to support his own side. We appreciate his desire to get out of that.
The other hon. Gentleman who makes up what is called the Scottish representation is the hon. Member for Gla9, gow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who I do not think will challenge what I have said so far. [Interruption.] I have always had a great admiration for his integrity and straightforwardness. I should not like him to undermine my confidence in his honesty. He said a number of things to the Committee, but all that I can find that he said about the Standing Committee was this:
… I agree that at the present moment the size of the Scottish Committee seems to be too large. I cannot see why it should be bigger than an English Committee. It has only got 71 people to draw from, and I would have thought that a number of about 16 would be very much more appropriate when you are drawing from 71 Members.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Closures and various other things, but that was all I could find in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee to justify its coming to the conclusion it did. I found no evidence of careful consideration such as was given by the right hon. Member for Argyll, for example, when he asked us if we could set up the Second Committee. There were comings and goings over a period, and it was recognised that it was important for us all.
The hon. Member for Hillhead will agree that while he plays a considerable part in Committees he does not want to spend more time than he can help on them. He says a couple of sentences, and they are summed up as long and careful consideration and


scrutiny on the part of the Select Committee. I am disappointed. The matter is dismissed on page xiv in a very small paragraph, the kernel of which consists of only three sentences:
Scottish Members"—
it does not say "two Scottish Members"—
drew the attention of Your Committee to this point"—
the size of the Committee—
and suggested that the minimum number on the first Scottish standing committee should be reduced to sixteen members from Scottish constituencies, the maximum number of 50 being retained. The Leader of the House pointed out that 'the size of standing committees is related mostly to the particular type of Bill' and thought that the Scottish standing committees should be the same size as other standing committees. Your Committee recommend that this change be made.
I will not speak for long. It is sometimes thought that I have a fault of speaking for longer than some of my hon. Friends, but we want to come to a conclusion fairly early, so I will be brief. But I must say that the Leader of the House has been a disappointment. We thought that we had put forward a reasonable proposition, which could function, with good will. When occasion arose, we thought, we could meet our particular needs, but on most occasions the Committee would be of the smaller size. But that is not to be. We are simply having this change pushed through.
The time given to debate the matter makes no difference. As I said before, I should have readily sacrificed the time for debate. I am not interested in that. I am interested in what is happening, and I do not like it. I regard it as most unfortunate. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dumfries—now one of the Under-Secretaries of State—should have been prepared to allow it to be done. I thought better of him.
It is most regrettable, and I am disappointed in more ways than one. The Leader of the House talks a great deal about our paying so much attention to this matter. He shows that he has long since made up his mind and that nothing that could be said will make any difference to him. He intends to push the change through. He is not even interested in the arguments which are being advanced.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I had not intended to speak—I certainly have not prepared anything—but I have been provoked by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who made an excellent and carefully prepared speech.
In my view, the fuss which the Opposition are making, the time they are taking on this matter, a matter agreed by the all-party Procedure Committee, and their presence here in serried ranks on the benches opposite this evening, all add force to the argument for reducing the size of the First Scottish Standing Committee and making it a workmanlike Committee instead of merely a talking shop. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) put his finger on the point; he wants to see his name in the papers—though nobody else does. I do not want to see it, anyway.

Mr. Buchan: I can understand that. In view of what he usually says, there are very good reasons why the hon. Gentleman should not want his name in the papers.

Mr. Galbraith: Not my name, the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Buchan: But the hon. Gentleman also said that he did not want his name in the paper.

Mr. Galbraith: No.

Mr. Buchan: I acknowledge that, unless the hon. Gentleman understands the simple point that Parliament belongs not to the Members of Parliament but to the people of this country, he will not understand our argument. It is important that the people know what the hon. Gentleman says as well as what we on this side say.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the intelligence of the Scottish people. They can take a point if it is made once, or, perhaps, a difficult point if it is made twice. The hon. Member for Motherwell reckoned that if the Committee were as small as 16, there would be seven Socialist Members on it. There is no need to have an argument repeated seven times for it to sink into a Scottish audience. They are usually pretty quick off the mark.
The trouble is that these arguments go on and on ad infinitum, to such an extent that I am now incapable of taking in anything said by a member of the Opposition. I have trained myself to do it. I did it when I was a Scottish Whip for seven years. I was opposite number, so to speak, to the hon. Member for Motherwell, and perhaps that is why we have a sneaking regard for one another.
The fact that it comes before a large Committee does not necessarily mean that a matter is dealt with any more thoroughly. Often, it means that it is not dealt with so expeditiously. Moreover, when the Committee is drawn from only a small number like 71, Scottish Members are not able to serve on other Committees. This is a serious disadvantage in being a Scottish Member of Parliament. One is inward looking the whole time.
The hon. Member for Motherwell could probably make my speech better than I can myself. I can make any speech he cares to make. As for the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—when I find it difficult to go to sleep at night, I just think of him making one of his notorious speeches. We have really had too much of this.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will have no trouble about sleeping tonight.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did not intend to listen to him.
I remember the late Colonel Walter Elliot—and I have repeated the story before—saying that the trouble with Scotsmen was that if one got them all together in a chamber which was well-heated and if there was somebody to take down every word that they said, and one paid those Scotsmen into the bargain, one would never stop them talking.
This is the trouble with the Scottish Grand Committee and the First Scottish Standing Committee; and it would be the trouble in the House if there were not some of our kind friends from across the Border to apply a little prodding to make us get on with the work. I firmly believe that this suggestion of the Procedure Committee, which has had all-party blessing till this stage, will help our deliberations in Scotland. There is nothing fixed about it. That is made quite clear by the Father of the House,

my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton). It gives flexibility. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West does not give flexibility, because every time it is decided that there should be a debate on Second Reading on the Floor of the House, automatically—

Mr. Buchan: indicated assent—

Mr. Galbraith: I do not like "automatically". But automatically if the Second Reading were on the Floor of the House the Committee has to be 30; but I want flexibility. If the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who come from south of the Border have faith in the system of the usual channels and the Procedure Committee to see that in appropriate cases the United Kingdom Committees are larger than the minimum, I do not see why the Scottish Members should not, as they are Members of Parliament, have faith in the same organisation.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I feel that the House has been listening to a somnambulist, a man who has been sleeping and who then wakes and discovers that he is still speaking. Such a man generally talks nonsense.
Let us look at what is happening in terms of the recommendations for 16 men. This is a diminution of the rights of democracy in an election petition at the ballot box, that enthralling event when the choice is made as to the representative quality of members, apart from party affiliation, and the decision taken has been quite excitingly in favour of this side of the House.
It appears that behind the Motion is a restriction on the style of debate and the nature of Committees. My hon. Friends who are musicians will know that there are eight keys in one octave and that with two hands the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. The Prime Minister must have read the report, because he has now composed the "broken melody", that is, to break the Scottish Members if he can.
The presence of the Lord Advocate reminds me of a story. I do not normally speak in Latin and tonight I shall let hon. Members off the hook. The story is about a case which was presided over by Mr. Justice Darling many years ago,


about someone who, peddling his wares, sold stinking fish to a parson. I quote the ruling in the advice to the jury:
If he happens to know that his fish do stink, he must not cry, 'Fresh fish, fresh fish', nor is he any more entitled to do so if he happens to know that his customer cannot smell.
The electorate in Scotland can smell on this matter, and this manœuvre stinks.
To that degree, it is partisan and political in character, and goes against every method of what we call political democracy, that if one goes to the ballot box one's rights should be evercised on the number of Members one wishes to have on a Committee. To that extent I condemn that condition and the recommendation of the Select Committee as a squalid political manœuvre.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I will not try to emulate the analogy drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) with stinking fish. I am by nature slightly more generous. Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), I shall not say whether this is a prepared speech or one that I am making off the cuff. If ever I make a good speech, I am not too sure which is the best way of setting about it.
Unnecessary suspicion has been aroused on this question. I shall not make any of the wider political points which have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), and for Scotstoun. It is not a wise move to try to get through a Measure about which there is disagreement at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon, especially when it was not on the Order Paper until that very day. I hope that the Leader of the House will not accuse me of being suspicious without evidence, whatever he says about some of my hon. Friends. It was sheer chance that we had the opportunity to debate this question. It is not due necessarily to the generosity of the Leader of the House; though, he having been caught out once, I give him full marks for having been generous since then in the assurances he has given.
The case for change has not been established. I do not want to object to the change if there is merit in it or if there

is something reasonable about it. Despite what the people of Scotland have decided at the ballot box, if there should be a small Committee of 16 Members it would be intolerable to tie down members of the Government in Committee. After all, we may be in the same position ourselves again. It would be intolerable and irresponsible to tie down as Lobby fodder three junior Ministers who should be discharging their responsibilities to the people of Scotland, even though we do not always agree with what they are doing. As I should resent being treated in that way myself, so I can understand junior Ministers resenting it.
I cannot understand how a man with such great natural charm as the hon. Member for Hillhead can be so offensive in his arguments. He made one valid point. He finds it abhorrent to share in the work of Scottish Committees. He may be genuine in his desire to share in the work of United Kingdom Committees together with other Government backbench Members, but we on this side are deprived of the opportunity of so serving.
I do not believe that it would do any of us any good in Scotland if we were forced to admit that we had taken a certain view on this matter mainly because the people of Scotland had shown so little confidence in the Conservative Party. This could give rise to misunderstanding outside because of the need to obtain sufficient Opposition hon. Members to man a Committee. This could arise with a Measure like the Housing Bill, not because there are party disagreements, although of course there are, but because of the need, in the interests of the legislation, to have a number of hon. Members on the Committee who are able to improve the Bill.
It is understood that while the Opposition membership of any Committee is unlikely to win any major arguments in debating a Bill brought forward by the Government, it is able to educate the Government on parts of the Bill, whatever it is, and for this reason it is important to have on any Committee the maximum number of hon. Members, within reason, who have knowledge of the legislation being discussed. This must happen in a democracy.
The crux of the argument seems to be that there is likely to be agreement


through the usual channels. Never having been in those channels it is difficult for me to contest this argument. However, during the time I have been in Parliament some very peculiar things seem to have happened in those channels. Indeed, I sometimes feel that I am swimming in totally different ones from those in which my party is in consultation.
We must make up our minds whether we want a big Committee not just because a Measure may be controversial but because of the ability of hon. Members to bring knowledge to bear on the subject under discussion. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would have liked to have been members of the Committee which examined, for example, the Divorce Bill, which would be limited to a membership of 16 under these proposals if the Bill was considered in the Second Committee.
What will happen if the First Committee is sitting at the same time and there is difficulty in finding sufficient hon. Members to staff the other one? Will the Government have to rely on English and Welsh hon. Members to man the two Committees, or even only one of them? While I would not necessarily disagree with that, we must accept that it could have political implications for both major parties in Scotland. Is this state of affairs within the thinking of the Leader of the House and, if so, does the Secretary of State object to it?
I am willing to be convinced on this issue. I remain unconvinced, however, that all these matters can be resolved through the usual channels. Nor am I convinced that we will be able to get large enough Committees to deal not simply with controversial legislation but with some major aspects of legislation affecting, for example, Scotland. This could seem to be uncontroversial but in fact it could turn out to be controversial. In other words, I have fears about this, but I am willing to accept the Minister's reassurance.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Many of the points that I might have made have already been dealt with. It remains a fact that if we are to accept the Government's proposals, which stems from the deliberations of the Select Committee on Procedure, we

shall be doing so on evidence that is plainly too scant.
As far as one can see, there are three strands of evidence in support of the recommendation. One is an undisclosed memorandum from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). The second is the opinion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), whose evidence boils down to the fact that he found being a member of Standing Committees a boring experience. I assure him that that is not a common view. [Lauhter.] It may be a common view among hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that even on that side—

Mr. Galbraith: I have had too much of it.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman has had too much of it, there are others who will doubtless take his place.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is making more of this than is necessary. My point is that it is a great pity if Scottish Members are restricted almost entirely to serving on Scottish Committees. It makes them inward-looking. When the hon. Gentleman has been in the House a little longer and has had the opportunity of serving on English and United Kingdom Committees as well as Scottish Committees—perhaps he has done so already—he will probably recognise, and I defy him to deny, that there is a difference in approach, not necessarily to the disadvantage of the English Committees.

Mr. Maclennan: It may be that my experience is more limited than the hon. Gentleman's but I can draw my own conclusions. I am only too well aware that under the present system it is quite possible for Scottish Members to serve on more than one Committee. I sat on no fewer than four Committees at one time during the 1969–70 Session. It involved a certain amount of logistic problems on occasion, but it was possible to be an active member of all four and to make useful contributions. Even the hon. Gentleman would not seek to place too much weight on the evidence, he gave, which really boiled down to a couple of sentences in which he said that he found it boring.
The third and, perhaps, most significant contribution was made by the Leader of the House who stated that he thought


that Scottish Standing Committees should be the same size as other Standing Committees. That statement lacked any argument in support. It was only an assertion.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: That is not quite what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. He did not say that they should be the same size but that the same rule governing size—that is, between 16 and 50 members—should apply to the Scottish Standing Committees as applies to the other Standing Committees.

Mr. Maclennan: I accept that in referring to the evidence of the Leader of the House, the Select Committee compressed his arguments in a way that might have given rise to over-simplification. Nevertheless, it is plain that he was suggesting that the principal reason for recommending a change would be one of logic. In my view, that is the most unsatisfactory basis for making a constitutional change, particularly as it affects the relationship of Scottish Members to their functions in representing the people of Scotland. If we are to accept the logic of that position, we will find ourselves following extremely strange paths. It could strictly be argued in logic that Scotland enjoys a much too large parliamentary representation because we have 71 Members out of a House of 630, but no one would seriosuly argue that the logic of that position should be sustained.
The fact is that the Scottish Standing ing Committees exercise quite different functions from those of the English Standing Committees dealing with Bills, and it is extraordinarily insensitive, to put it no higher, of the Government to fail to take account of this difference. Is not the Secretary of State aware of this difference? Can he deny that the Press takes a much more detailed interest in what is discussed in Scottish Standing Committees in comparison with the interest shown by the English Press in what is discussed in English Standing Committees? In fact, the fourth estate—the Press—plays a very intimate part in the proceedings of Parliament in this respect.
We have in a sense taken account through the institution of the Scottish Standing Committees of the problem of remoteness from central Government, which is the penumbra of this debate and

has, unfortunately, not been sufficiently allowed for in the Government's argument.
This is not simply a matter of numbers, nor can it be a matter of practicalities. Suppose that the Opposition are forced, at the behest of the Government, to choose seven of their Members to serve on a Standing Committee dealing with highly controversial legislation—and let us not be confused about who makes the choice. The Committee of Selection may decide the number, but it is the Government who, in the last analysis, decide that only seven Opposition Members will serve on the Committee. That ensures that the voice of Scotland will be less clearly heard and less representatively expressed. If we look at the matter in terms of geographical representation of the different areas of Scotland or in terms of the different interests which Opposition Members representing Scottish constituences express in the Committees, we realise how limiting this proposal is.
Government back-bench Members do not represent such a broad cross-section of Scottish life as Opposition Members. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Hillhead suggested, Members opposite face the prospect of simply repeating what another hon. Member opposite has said. Their philosophy is the same, as is the class from which they stem, their education and schools. But that is not true of the Opposition. We are drawn from every class of Scottish life, from every region of Scotland and from every conceivable background. We bring these different qualities to our debates and we regard them as enriching. That is why we resent this blatantly political manoeuvre.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Eadie.

Mr. Alex Eadie: May I at the outset—

Mr. MacArthur: Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: I did not see him rise to his feet. If the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will give way to the hon. Gentleman, I will call him after the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has spoken.

Mr. Eadie: Oh.

Mr. MacArthur: I attempted to speak several times.

Mr. Eadie: This is not good enough.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who always claims to believe in fair shares, must allow me to say a few words on this important matter.
I welcome this proposal because it makes utter sense; it is totally fair. There have been changes made before in the composition of the Scottish Committee. There is nothing new in changing its composition. Changes have been made in our Committee procedure. I remember that the Second Scottish Committee was set up at the instigation of right hon. and hon. Members opposite with support from this side of the House. That Committee has done admirable work.

Mr. Buchan: Before the hon. Gentleman starts to lecture us, will he say whether he heard the arguments for and against the proposals? Did he hear the history of the proposals outlined on both sides of the House?

Mr. MacArthur: I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech in extenso and I heard other speeches. I apologise to the one or two Members whose speeches I missed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say what I wish to say. I propose to flatter him by spending quite a bit of my speech in commenting on his remarks, which I heard completely and which I disagree with totally.
There is nothing new in changing the composition of Committees of this House. Change is welcome if it makes sense. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said that the Scottish Committees are rather different from other Standing Committees because they debate matters of great principle which are watched very carefully in Scotland. I think that was the general trend of his remarks, and to a large extent I agree with him. These Committees are important. They debate Scottish Bills which are important to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Committees are watched by the Scottish Press more than other Standing Committees of the House are watched by the newspapers in the South. In parenthesis I would say that I am sorry we are not reported a little more than

we are by the B.B.C. in Scotland because a large part of the great debate in Scottish national life takes place in the Scottish Committees.
However, I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not so much the Scottish Standing Committee which is the forum for these great debates, but that it is the Scottish Grand Committee which debates the great matters of principle. It is the Scottish Grand Committee which holds the equivalent on Scottish Bills of Second Reading debates. It is not so much the Scottish Standing Committee which deals with these broad matters of principle to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. MacArthur: I do not want to make too much of this point. I simply make the point to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Grand Committee is not affected by this proposal. The Scottish Grand Committee will continue, and the Scottish Grand Committee will continue to deal with the matters of great principle, having Estimates days and matter days, and the equivalent of Second Reading debates by debates on the principles of Scottish Bills.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that because the Scottish Standing Committee was of such importance to Scottish national life a larger number of Members should be able to take part in debates in that Committee, but I would suggest that it is not the number of Members actually on the Committee which secures this interest in the working of the Scottish Standing Committee and arouses the Press reporting and comment to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not the number of Members. Surely, it is the quality of the debates in which they engage; and I do not believe that the quality of the debates is necessarily improved by enlarging the membership or obtaining artificially a large number of Members on the Committee. I do not accept his apparent argument that the debates in the Scottish Standing Committee will arouse less interest in Scotland in the Scottish Committee because on occasions there will be fewer Scottish Members on the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman and others have had some fun because of their claim that we on this side have had difficulty in


manning the Scottish Standing Committee. They can believe that if they like, and if it brings them any comfort, but I would remind them that we have manned the Scottish Committee very well, very efficiently. We have had all our Members there; they have all taken part, and done extraordinarily well, and it has been a joy to us to help the Government to get through the excellent legislation which the Government have been bringing forward.
However, I would make the point which, I think, most hon. Members would accept, that Scottish Members work very hard in Parliament. There are 71 of us, as the hon. Member remarked just now, and, perhaps, it is arithmetically, overrepresentation, but we carry jointly a very large share of the work of Parliament. That is because not only do we take part, in the great debates on the Floor of the House, and at Question time, in United Kingdom affairs, but also we deal with Scottish Bills, and we have our own Scottish Committees and our Scottish Ministers. The load we carry is certainly not less than that which every other Member of Parliament welcomes as part of his duty here.
Indeed, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded us that in one Session, which was, admittedly, a very protracted one, after the 1966 General Election—a Session which went all through the summer months and to the end of the year before it ended—there were 71 Sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committees. That illustrates the amount of work which Scottish Members handle and have handled. We all do a good deal of work, every single one of us, and because of that there are occasions when I think that perhaps we take less part than we should like to in the Committees on United Kingdom Bills. We have all, I am sure, had experience of sitting in Committee on a United Kingdom Bill—from my point of view, rather less than I would like. Indeed, I remember—the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, point to this as an illustration of a temporary drop in our numbers on this side—sitting in Committee on a Scottish and a United Kingdom Bill at the same time—the rating Bills. It is not a comfortable

process. I dislike having to sit on two Committees at the same time. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that this happens to both parties, in Government and in Opposition and, even if we accept that there are occasions when we need to sit on two Committees at once, it would be more sensible for Scottish Members to exercise their influence and make their voices heard more frequently and more loudly on Committees considering United Kingdom Bills.
Surely, the central point is that we are not by this proposal putting Scotland at any disadvantage compared with England. All that is proposed is that the same Standing Committee rule should apply to Scottish legislation as applies to legislation for the United Kingdom. I find it hard to discern from the speeches I have heard any reasons to persuade me that we should not conform to rules which work pleasantly, harmoniously, sensibly and constructively for the conduct of United Kingdom business. This is the unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which considered all the relevant arguments, and on which a Scottish Member served, and it would be unreasonable for the House to reject the proposal, which I see as sensible and fair.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: My job is not to refrain from embarrassing the Government but rather to embarrass and harass the Government as much as possible. However much the Leader of the House may have represented himself as a model of conciliation, I was in the House when he tried to sneak this Motion through without debate. The argument that the Government are coming before the House as a model of conciliation is condemned by their tactics in trying to get the Motion through without debate.
Five or 10 minutes ago we experienced the kind of tactics that the Opposition have to stand when confronted by this Tory Government. I make no apology for harassing or embarrassing them or for not consoling them in their dilemma. Their dilemma is that they are a minority party in Scotland. We are the majority party in Scotland, and that means that we have a right to voice our opposition when the Government, in trying to escape their dilemma, try to sneak legislation through the House.
We know that this is a squalid manoeuvre and the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is an attempt to solve the embarrassing position of his Government. It is no use his telling us that everything will be all right and that we shall work through the usual channels. Having had experience of Parliament, we know that working through the usual channels means consultations. We are not daft. We have been in industry. We know that consultation does not mean management and that if the Government cannot have their way through the usual channels, they will exert their right as a majority to have their way. It is a mockery to suggest that the usual channels can solve this problem.
Many hon. Members feel that the Government have done great damage to political discussion by using the guillotine indiscriminately to curb discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like the Labour Government."]—but we did not set ourselves up as a paragon of virtue. We believe that there should be more discussion, argument and debate in the House. If it embarrasses hon. Members to sit in Committee because their horizons are limited, that is too bad. There is a wide horizon of opinion in this House. We have recently debated the Housing Finance Bill, but there are some hon. Members who do not know how council house tenants live, so how can they try to make an argument in debate?
We were lobbied today by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from Scotland, which an hon. Member opposite treated with arrogance and contempt for people's opinions. We should thank God that they came down to Parliament, because it shows faith in parliamentary democracy. It is when they stop coming that we should worry. Some of us prize parliamentary democracy, which is sometimes a fragile flower. Some of our forbears had to fight to get it.
Parliament belongs not to the Government but to the people. The Government are in office for only a certain period. The day will come when the people decide that they do not want that kind of Government. Before that day comes, however, we have a responsibility as an Opposition to make sure that they do not destroy the rights of the people to debate in Standing Committee.
Scotland is a nation, not just a region. We as a substantial majority party are entitled to see that these matters are discussed. So we will oppose the Government tonight. Whatever they may say, this is a squalid manoeuvre brought about by their own difficulties, from which it is not our job to extricate them.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: We have had an interesting debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will appreciate that Scottish Members feel strongly on this. May I thank him for his consideration on the two occasions when I met him in his room to discuss this, when we tried to resolve what must in the end be a question of faith and the acceptability of assurances by him or by me?
It has been suggested that a contentious matter which was the subject of a Division on Second Reading merited a much larger Committee. The right hon. Gentleman gave his reasons, which I understand. He is prepared to trust me, because I am a reasonable man, as I am prepared to trust him, but changes take place and 10 people may rise to spoil things.
In the same way, he must appreciate our difficulty. Our only guarantee in this Standing Order is a membership of 16, and the rest will be questions of powers. Any Motion about the size of the Committee and what hon. Members are on the Committee will be entirely in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. And it is no use trying to convince an awkward customer like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) about the usual channels.

Mr. Harold Gurden: rose—

Mr. Ross: Yes, I know—the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us about the Selection Committee. But we are dealing with the rules under which the Selection Committee and its Chairman will have to work. Any initiative in determining the size of Committees—

Mr. Gurden: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should have been here at the start to correct his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He should not have come to correct me.
I appreciate what the Leader of the House has done and the consideration which the Select Committee on Procedure has given to this matter, but they have failed lamentably to appreciate the sensitivity of this. There is no reason why they should. It is obvious that the Committee did not send for a memorandum from the Clerk of the House on the history of the Scottish Committee. If it had, there would be no excuse, other than just a human error, for the Father of the House getting matters wrong about the history.

Sir R. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that, on the Select Committee on Procedure we had a Scottish Member who sits on the benches opposite and who had full knowledge of the history of the Second Scottish Committee.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is not here at present. But my hon. Friend entered this House in 1966—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: What better prosecution witness!

Mr. Ross: I do not grant any accolades to professors of constitutional history, but I suggest that many hon. Members present tonight have been part of the history of the development of Committees.
The one Scottish Member to give evidence in person to the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), made a few remarks and has now departed. He is not interested in replies to his points.
My first comment about the Select Committee on Procedure is that it did not give enough time to its consideration of these matters. I understand that there was a letter from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour)—

An Hon. Member: Where is he?

Mr. Ross: I think that he is in Australia. The letter is not even printed in the Report of the Committee. Then the hon. Member for Hillhead appeared before the Committee, for some reason. The Committee wished to see him about a point related to Closures, and then he was asked, "By the way, about another

matter …" I think that he was asked one question, and he answered it as part of a sentence. I have the evidence before me. I could read all the questions and answers in respect of this matter and it would take me exactly two minutes. That is the published evidence. It may be that the Committee spent hours in deliberation, though I doubt it very much.
Then his lordship himself, the Leader of the House, suddenly was seized of the importance of this matter and the desire to get efficiency. I wish that the hon. Member for Hillhead were here. Out of justice to the House, I think that I ought to read exactly what took place. The Leader of the House was asked by the Chairman:
I would like to pass to two other short points on the Scottish side of the business. The suggestion has been made that some Scottish Bills should go to the Scottish Grand Committee or the Scottish Standing Committee for Report stage. Would that be a possibility?
The Leader of the House replied in his customary brief form:
Yes, I think it would be a possibility.
That was that point finished. Then the Chairman said:
The other odd thing about Scotland is Standing Order No. 69. Whereas the other Standing Committees have recently been cut down to size, there is a very high proportion of the Scottish Members — 30 — on the First Scottish Standing Committee. Is not that now rather out of line with your other Committees?
That was a bit of a leading question. Having been led, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
Yes. We would very much like to have Scottish Standing Committees of the same size as other Standing Committees, and I do not think there is any good reason why they should not be.
Then the Chairman asked:
The Second Scottish Standing Committee is, I think, the nomal size of 16?
The Leader of the House replied:
Yes. But we do not see any reason why Scottish Standing Committees should not be the same size as other Standing Committees.
That is slightly repetitious, this advancing of cogent reasons. The Chairmen then asked:
Is there any difficuly in manning the two together when they have 46 Members between them?


The Leader of the House answered:
We just do not think that there is any reason why the Scotisht Committees should be different from other Standing Committees.
It is virtually becoming tautologous now. One notices the cogency and the piling up of reasons.
Once they have come to Standing Committees, it is reasonable that they should all be subjected to the same test.
He does not say what the test is. It would be interesting to know.
The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being fair. He made a statement about a fortnight ago on the work of the Committee on Procedure. He felt it right to make that statement and then dealt with how it should be handled. What he did not tell the House was that he tried to slip this proposal through without giving prior notice to the House, and he put it down for a Friday. Fortunately, somebody was there just to say "Object". If he could have got it through in that way, he would have done so. I do not object to his doing it on a Friday. The great point which he made was that Friday is like any other day. Why did he single out this item to be pushed through in advance of making a statement to the House about the whole business of the Committee on Procedure? He has not told us yet. It boils down to the point that either he knows very little about the history of the Scottish Committee or, if he does, he is not concerned about it.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are 44 Labour Members from Scotland, 23 Conservatives, three Liberals and one Nationalist. When we take from that number the Ministers in other Departments, the Tories are pretty thin on the ground to do the work as it should be done. Therefore, they cut down the Committee in size. There are no objections on that side because, quite frankly, hon. Members opposite have never been all that enthusiastic about serving on Scottish Committees. I have yet to recall an occasion when we had a Sittings Motion suggesting that we should meet on Wednesdays as well as Thursdays which was greeted with enthusiasm, either now or in the days when the leader of that band of people was our friend Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley who used to delight us with speeches on this subject. I do not mind them, but

I object to the rights of the majority being diminished and Members who are willing to serve on Committees being denied the opportunity of serving their constituents.
The Father of the House has been misled, not only about the history of the Second Scottish Committee but about its purpose. It was made clear when it was set up that it would deal with noncontroversial, technical Bills. It is wrong to talk in terms of technical Bills in relation to the First Standing Committee. Its Bills are not technical Bills. I have always been in favour of greater use of the Second Standing Committee, which usually meets on a Wednesday and does not interfere with the other Committees, for law reform Measures, for example. There is no reason for them to be held up. It is of considerable advantage to Scottish Members who draw places in the Ballot if they bring forward purely Scottish legislation. It means that instead of waiting in a queue for the Committee dealing with Private Members Bills, their Bills can be slotted in. I have seen that Committee deal with as many as four or five in one day. It is wrong for hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Hillhead, to give a wrong impression of our approach to legislation. When it comes to major legislation, that is an entirely different matter.
I turn now to the origin of the Committee in 1906. [Interruption.] I mean 1907. It was a Liberal Government, anyway. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here at the time. Nor was I, for that matter. Changes were made in 1922, when there was a considerable cutting down of these Committees. However, the Scottish Grand Committee was not touched. In 1948 further changes were made concerning the size of Committees. Again, the Scottish Grand Committee was left unchanged.
It is not usual for the Leader of the House to dismiss something which is anomalous as nonsense when there is this history behind it. He should have asked why it was not changed in 1922 or in 1948. Why did this system last right into about the 1960s? When I came to the House in 1946—and some of my hon Friends came here before then, in 1945—every Scottish Member had the


right to be on every Committee considering a Scottish Bill. Many of us used that right because, having been sent here from Scotland, we reckoned it our job to be on every Committee considering Scottish legislation. I know that it was troublesome. In those days the Secretary of State had to appear in the Committee. There was a system of pairing, which meant that a Member could opt out of the Committee to do other business.
Reference has been made to the difficulty of having to attend two Committees. Many of my hon. Friends already serve on more than one Committee. Some of them are on the Select Committee on Procedure and on the Select Committee on Expenditure, which used to be the Estimates Committee. Many of us serve on two Committees sitting simultaneously, and we are still able to do our legislative work. Very often when an English Measure contains provisions relating to Scotland Scottish Members duplicate their work by attending the Committee considering that Measure and attend the Scottish Committee, too.
There were some changes in the Committee procedure following the report of 1957. I gave evidence on behalf of Scottish Labour Members, as did George Willis, a former Minister of State for Scotland. It was not a case of three sentences in those days. It was Walter Elliot, whose name was mentioned somewhat facetiously, who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure at that time. Evidence was taken from the then Secretary of State, Jack Maclay, and from that doyen of the House, who was as well remembered as a Tory Chief Whip as Secretary of State, James Stuart. The evidence lasted for about three days, and it is interesting to note that the Scottish Committee was not brought down to the same size as the other Committees. Everyone recognised the uniqueness of the Scottish Committee, and the House must appreciate that.
Before the right hon. Gentleman gives us the reply which has been prepared by the Scottish Office—and I know what sort of reply one gets from the Scottish Office—he should consider what happened the other night. He should ask his advisers to look at what was said by the Balfour Commission on Scottish

Affairs about the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Committee, and the power and influence which Scottish Members have over Scottish legislation.
I am sorry that the Liberals are not here tonight, but I see that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) is present. He will not be on the Scottish Committee unless the Tories give up one of their places. If they do, the chances are that the hon. Gentleman will vote with us and the Tories will be in a minority. Not that I should object to that.
When we were the Government, and put through the Highland and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, most of the Liberals were from the Highlands but, on the basis of proportional representation, I do not think that they were entitled to be Members of the Committee considering that Bill. That is what happens when the size of a Committee is reduced. The adequacy of geographical representation is reduced.
I hope that the case we are making will not be dismissed as nonsense, or as something rather odd, because if we reduce the size of a Committee—be it an English Committee, or any other—we reduce the extent to which it properly represents the make-up of the House of Commons. The original idea was that a Committee should represent the composition of the House. This is why there should be English Members on the Scottish Standing Committee. It is a Committee of the House and they should be represented upon it.
I believe that on this matter the Government have gone too far and I hope that the Leader of the House will think again. The Scottish Standing Committees have a significant place in the eyes of the Scottish public. The Secretary of State should reread the Tory Constitutional Committee's comments about this matter and its conclusions about our control of Scottish affairs. Yet here the Government are reducing the influence of Scottish Members, and it is we who suffer from it. Although the Government do not have a majority in Scotland, they will have a bigger proportion of their Members on the Committee to maintain their majority as a reflection of the majority in the House. We shall be denied representation to a greater extent.
This procedure will apply not only to technical legislation. There is to be a Scottish Housing Bill the Second Reading of which will, I presume, be taken on the Floor of the House and it will then go to the First Scottish Standing Committee. That Bill will affect every constituency in Scotland. It is a vital matter and we shall need as big a Committee as we can get. The more the Committee is reduced in numbers the greater the number of people who are unrepresented.
What is to happen on the Report stage? The Leader of the House, who knows a great deal more about procedure than I do, knows that procedure is dictated not by the size of a Committee but by what happens in the Committee and what is discussed in it. Therefore, it is not good enough to say that hon. Members will have sufficient opportunity to discuss various matters on Report, because they will not. The hon. Member for Hillhead talked about belonging to a shortened Committee, but if he looks up what was said by the former Jimmy Stuart in 1957 he will appreciate that even a small Committee of Scots can talk for quite a long time if they think they have to.
All this is being done on the basis of uniformity. I was disappointed by the remarks made by the Father of the House. He will know that after a Second Reading in an English Committee, the Question is put forthwith on the Floor of the House. But when a piece of legislation goes to the Scottish Committee for discussion in principle and comes back to the Floor of the House, if six of us put down our names the matter has to be debated all over again. Why did not the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) seek to change that odd practice? I hope I am not putting ideas into his head.
One matter which the Committee on Procedure examined was that if it is suggested that a Scottish Bill should go for consideration in principle on Second Reading to the Scottish Grand Committee—that is, to a very large Committee—10 hon. Members may stand and object. This was what worried the Leader of the House a little earlier. On an English Bill 20 hon. Members must stand and object, but somehow or other history or

something else struck the Father of the House in that regard and he said, "We will leave this alone".

Sir R. Turton: I was a member of the previous Select Committee on Procedure and we recommended that particular procedure because, since there were fewer Scottish Members, it was only right to provide for only 10 hon. Members to object. This is why we are trying to get uniformity on this matter. On the Scottish housing Bill there can be a Committee of 50 members if the Committee on Selection agrees.

Mr. Ross: The right to object to a Scottish Bill going to Committee for Second Reading is not a right given to Scottish Members but a right given to the House of Commons. Therefore, if it is justified for the sake of uniformity in regard to the Committee on Procedure, it is equally justified elsewhere. The Father of the House and his Committee should have been logical on this matter.
I should like hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee to read the new Standing Order. Standing Order No. 62 states:
(1) Save in the case of—

(a) the Scottish Grand Committee,
(b) the Scottish Standing Committees,
(c) the Welsh grand Committee, and
(d) a standing committee for the consideration of a bill on report,

the Committee of Selection shall nominate not less than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill committed, allocated or referred to it.
We amend that by replacing "Scottish Standing Committees". The Amendment is to insert in line 19, after "that",
(i) for the consideration of any public bill certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland or of a public Bill (or part of a public bill) ordered to be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the committee shall be so constituted as to include not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies;
—that is, 16 of the possible 50.
But the Standing Order will go on to sub-paragraph (ii), which has the proviso that
for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire.


I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain this. There are not many Bills which are exclusive to Wales and Monmouthshire. But if we are concerned with a principle, how is it possible to justify that part being left in? If the answer is that there is no difficulty with it simply because there is so little legislation of that kind, it is not a satisfactory answer.
This brings me back to the point that the matter arises from the dilemma the Government are in because the people of Scotland sent so few Tories down here that they cannot manage. They would be far more honest if they admitted it. We cannot accept a further lessening of our rights. They were diminished after the 1957 Report, and now more are being taken away. It is no good the Secretary of State speaking of the usual channels, because on the basis that the Leader of the House would not trust our word about our attitude on the question of hon. Members standing for the Second Reading principle, we cannot accept that we should be left at the mercy of whichever Government may be in power or of whoever may be Leader of the House in the future, and the possible cutting of the number to 16.
I advise my hon. Friends to oppose the Motion.

9.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): We have had a lively debate on this subject of importance to our parliamentary procedures for dealing with Scottish legislation.
The effect of the Motion is to bring the First Scottish Standing Committee into the same position as all the other United Kingdom Standing Committees. Many of them deal with Bills covering Scotland as well as England and Wales, but some deal with Bills that affect only England and Wales. The change was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure, which consisted of Members from both sides, including a Scottish Labour Member.
The Standing Orders governing the size of all the other Standing Committees were changed by the House in 1968, when the last Government were in office. I do not believe that that was done for political reasons. It was done when the right hon.

Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was Leader of the House, and I believe the reason he did it—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Scottish Standing Committees may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Campbell: I believe that, among other things, the reason was that he was setting up a number of new Select Committees, which meant that the membership of the House as a whole would be stretched in manning even more Committees in addition to the Standing Committees. But the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) seemed entirely to overlook that change in 1968 which had been made in the rules governing the size of the other standing committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton), the Father of the House, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, drew attention to the fact that the other Standing Committees had been subject to that change, reducing their minimum to 16, in 1968. What is being proposed now is that the Scottish Standing Committee should be treated in the same way, instead of being an anomaly.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the proposal now, providing for a minimum of 16 to bring the Committee into the same position as other United Kingdom Committees, had come suddenly out of the blue to meet a special situation arising from the proportion of Scottish Members on the two sides of the House.

Mr. Buchan: Right.

Mr. Campbell: Was that the reason why it was done in 1968 for all the other Standing Committees, in the time of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East? Of course not. It was done because, among other things, there were new Select Committees being set up by the right hon. Gentleman, then Leader of the House, including a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on which Scottish Members were asked to serve as well as on the Standing Committee and the Grand Committee.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West suggest that the Motion before the


House should be amended in such a way as to tie the size of the Committee to the question whether a Bill was to be debated on the Floor of the House on Second Reading or be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. But such a new factor could upset the present considerations which influence whether a Second Reading is taken on the Floor—which does not always include a vote, as I shall point out.
The three main considerations governing that matter at present are these. First, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reminded us, there is the right of no fewer than 10 Members to rise in their place to defeat a Motion that a Scottish Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. Then there is the question of a vote. If a Bill is highly controversial and there is to be a vote on the Second Reading—it may be quite a short Bill; it is within recent memory that a Bill of only three Clauses was highly controversial—its Second Reading is taken on the Floor of the House and it is voted on here because only procedural Motions can be put in the Scottish Grand Committee.
There is a third important consideration which should not be overlooked. Important Scottish Bills—they may be very long—which are not controversial and which are not to be opposed on Second Reading may nevertheless, because of their significance for Scottish Members, and perhaps other Members, be taken on Second Reading on the Floor of the House. Such a Bill was the Highland Development Bill. It was agreed between the two sides of the House that it should be debated on Second Reading on the Floor although, when it was first published—we were in opposition at the time—we said that there was no question of our voting against its Second Reading. So there are three considerations, which at present are the most important considerations which govern whether a Bill is considered on the Floor of the House at its Second Reading or is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
The point is that if the question of the size of the Standing Committee on a Bill were also to be included as another factor, that would be a temptation for either 10 Members to get up to try to keep the Bill on the Floor of the House

or to cause a vote, although it was not really a controversial Bill, because they were concerned to govern the size of a Standing Committee and were not concerned about the merits or about whether there should be a vote on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised some very interesting points. He and I were both Scottish Whips for two years, on each side. I was the Government Scottish Whip and he was the Opposition Scottish Whip. We were then the Scottish "usual channels". I confirm what he said, that we were able to make arrangements extremely amicably during that period together, including the setting up, for the first time, of the Second Scottish Standing Committee.
The hon. Member raised the question of Standing Order No. 67(2), to which my right hon. Friend referred, and asked whether my right hon. Friend was suggesting that there may be abuse of the rule whereby not less than 10 Members could stand. My right hon. Friend was not suggesting that. He was just pointing out that that safeguard for back benchers could be used in future for a different purpose. As I understand it, at present it is a safety valve for back benchers in a situation in which the two Front Benches have agreed that a Bill should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. If not less than 10 Members rise, together they can defeat that. This was done about four years ago and it is within the memory of hon. Members that it was done by a group of back benchers, including the Liberal Members and the two Nationalist Members of that day. It was, therefore, a group of back bench Members, and not either of the Front Benches, who rose and mustered at least 10 and thereby stopped a Motion for the referral of a Bill. In reply to another point raised, they were not all Scottish Members. So there has been an occasion when this has been done. But at present, this is a safeguard in order to ensure that discussion takes place on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
If this new factor were introduced, the purpose of doing this, or indicating that a vote, which could be an unofficial vote, was to take place on a Bill, could be to govern the size of the committee—something quite different from the intention of the present Standing Orders.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was sympathetic about Ministers' positions, and said that to have perhaps three Scottish Ministers on the Standing Committee of a Bill was wasting the time of at least one of them. I thank him for his sympathy, but I am also concerned about back benchers' positions as well as Ministers' positions. Back benchers should be free to be able to take part in the deliberations on other Standing Committees and not be permanently on the Scottish Standing Committee.
The longest United Kingdom Standing Committee sessions I have ever had were not in the Scottish Committee; they were—I was joined with other Scottish Members in this—on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill about three years ago, which was a marathon. There were Scots on both sides. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were the Chairman of that Committee, and I need not remind you of the occasion. On that Bill, I admit that I missed the opportunity of serving on the Scottish Standing Committee, which was dealing with a Scottish Sewerage Bill. But I was engaged in very important Scottish transport matters with other hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Mr. Gurden: I apologise sincerely to my right hon. Friend for not being present for the whole of the debate. What he is saying now has been a constant problem for the Committee of Selection, as Scottish hon. Members have indicated their wish to be on some of the United Kingdom Committees and we have simply been unable to accommodate them. Would my right hon. Friend deal with this point? Unless I have misunderstood what he was indicating, I thought that the Government Front Bench decided the size of Committees. As I understand it, as chairman of the Committee of Selection, I am always determined, at the beginning of every meeting, to ask whether it is agreed that a certain number shall apply to a certain bill. Is it the responsibility of the Committee of Selection, or is it the Government's responsibility?

Mr. Campbell: As I understand it, it is the Committee of Selection that decides which hon. Members should serve on Standing Committees and the size of Committees. I understand that the Committee of Selection seeks advice on the

size of Committees and that it has been possible through the usual channels for the size of United Kingdom Committees to be discussed and agreed.
The hon. Member for Provan asked if it was intended that non-Scottish Members should be included in the composition of the Standing Committee which is the subject of the Motion. It is not the intention to call upon English, Welsh or Northern Irish Members to do this. The proposed change to the Standing Orders includes the words—
not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies.
With this new flexibility it should be possible to ensure that on a Standing Committee there will always be Members representing Scottish constituencies and that recourse will not be needed to other hon. Members. In the 1959–64 Parliament, when the hon. Member for Motherwell and I were the respective Scottish Whips for part of the time, there were one or two occasions when non-Scottish Members were members of the Scottish Standing Committee when that Committee was very large. This aroused no comment at the time and was accepted, but I do not think that this is necessary in the future with the flexibility that we intend to introduce.
The position is different in the Grand Committee. Since 1919 in the Grand Committee it has been obligatory for at least 10 and not more than 15 non-Scottish Members to be added to the 71 Scottish Members. No Grand Committee which has been set up since 1919 has been without at least 10 additional Members from Wales, England or Ireland. That need not be the situation in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman now says "need not be". A little while ago he said that it would not be the position. Is the size of the Committee which will consider a Bill, no matter the importance of the Bill—it might be the Local Government Bill—to be determined by the number of Tory Members available?

Mr. Campbell: It is clear from the wording that it is intended that they should be Members from Scottish constituencies. I am sure that that is what hon. Members on both sides representing Scottish constituencies would wish.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that the Second Scottish Standing Committee had dealt almost entirely with Private Members' Bills. When that Committee was first set up—I was the Government Scottish Whip at the time—we decided not to put Government legislation, however non-controversial, into that Committee, and we did not. It has been only very recently—in the time of the right hon. Gentleman—that two non-controversial Government Bills have gone to that Committee.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say tonight that he would like that Committee to do more—for example to consider some law reform legislation. If that happens, it is even more important that the First Scottish Standing Committee should not be large, because this will be yet another Committee doing more work during the week on a Wednesday.
As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, major changes were made to the Scottish Committee system in 1958–59 following the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure which was then presided over by my predecessor as Member for Moray and Nairn, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, a former Secretary of State. It was following the recommendations of that Committee that it was decided that the Grand Committee should not be the Standing Committee for all Scottish Bills. The aim when that important change was made was clearly that there should be a Scottish Standing Committee which would work on the same lines as the other Standing Committees of the House.
On all the other United Kingdom Standing Committees there is agreement, and I here return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend who was the Chairman of the Committee on Selection. There is agreement between the two sides of the House through the usual channels on the size of the Committee, within the

bracket of what the size should be, depending on the importance of the Bill and other factors of that kind.

Unless the Scottish usual channels have become gummed up since my day as a Scottish Whip, I see no reason why that should not happen in relation to our affairs. In other words, surely we can arrange our Scottish parliamentary affairs as efficiently and sensibly through the usual channels as we arrange our United Kingdom parliamentary affairs?

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be joking. Consider, for example, what happened in the last Parliament. We found the normal channels completely blocked because of our failure to agree over one of the most important Measures ever to come before Parliament, namely, the Industrial Relations Bill.

Mr. Campbell: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that where the United Kingdom channels are concerned, the question of the size of Committees has not been a stumbling block. In the same way, I believe that where the Scottish usual channels are concerned, there is no reason why the size of Committees should prove a stumbling block. We may disagree about the content of Bills and there will be parliamentary opportunities for obstruction. Nevertheless, this has not been a problem on a United Kingdom basis, and I see no reason why it should become one on a Scottish basis.
The Motion simply ends an anomaly which has existed since 1968 when the other Standing Committees of the House were given this flexibility by the Labour Party on a proposal by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, who was then Leader of the House. This Motion will end that anomaly.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 136.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boscawen, Robert
Bryan, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Burden, F. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bray, Ronald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Benyon, W.
Brewis, John
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Carlisle, Mark


Biffen, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chapman, Sydney




Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond




Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tebbit, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernie
Trew, Peter


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walters, Dennis


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks, Robert
Murton, Oscar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nott, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, William (Rugby)



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYFS:


James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred
McCann, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ewing, Henry
McElhone, Frank


Baxter, William
Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsden, F.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)



Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lambie, David
Prescott, John


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)







Probert, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stallard, A. W.
Wallace, George


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Sillars, James
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Skinner, Dennis
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Small, William
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tinn, James
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Resolved,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) and No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees), hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees)

Leave out line 3.

Line 19, after 'that', insert—

(i) for the consideration of any public bill certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland or of a public Bill (or part of a public bill) ordered to be considered by a Scottish standing committee, the committee shall be so constituted as to include not less than sixteen members representing Scottish constituencies;
(ii).

Standing Order No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees)

Leave out paragraphs (2) to (4).

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — SUGAR BEET, SCOTLAND

10.27 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I raise tonight the issue of sugar beet-growing in Scotland, partly because it affects the farmers in my constituency who grow sugar beet and who are extremely alarmed about the present situation and partly because it raises many much wider issues. In looking at this matter, we have to consider the background.
We have a sugar beet factory at Cupar run by the British Sugar Corporation. This has permitted Scottish farmers to grow this very valuable crop. We must consider the impact on Scotland if this factory closes and sugar beet production ceases in Scotland. The factory has 200 permanent staff and 160 part-time staff, making 360 jobs connected with the factory. The majority of the crop is brought by lorry into the factory, so that it has an effect on the transport industry in the area.
Sugar beet is a labour-intensive crop in which a large number of farm workers are employed and the loss of the 14,000 acres of sugar beet-growing would mean a diminution in the agricultural labour force. Altogether, 100,000 acres of Scottish farm-land are affected by the growing of this crop as a rotation crop in the East of Scotland. Therefore, in every way the cessation of sugar beet production in Scotland would have an immediate effect on the job situation and a very deep effect on the prosperity of the whole farming industry in the East of Scotland.
In the six years that I have represented a farming constituency I have come across nothing which has caused more intense feeling in the East of Scotland than this issue. That is why I make no apology for raising this matter tonight, at a time when, in the next week or 10 days, we have to have a final decision and when, if it is not taken in an affirmative sense, sugar beet-growing ceases in Scotland.
I would point out that at this juncture the Scottish farming industry has not got

any ready alternative to turn to if sugar beet production ceases. Scottish farmers have been told that the acreage under potatoes has to come down; it has to be 87½ per cent. next year of the present level. So they cannot turn easily to further potato production. Again, a number of vegetable processing firms have stopped production in Scotland and the farmers cannot turn to vegetables. This is, therefore, a very serious matter for the Scottish farming industry and affects its whole confidence and resilience when we want to encourage the industry at the time just prior to our entry to the Common Market.
I must bring attention to the fact that this immediately affects jobs in Scotland at a time when we are heading for 1 million unemployed in this country, at a time when we should be doing all we can, and when the Government say they want to do all they can, to stimulate and maintain employment in Scotland.
Let us look at the history of this particular concern. In 1966 the British Sugar Corporation operating the sugar factory at Cupar said that if from 14,000 to 16,000 acres were grown in Scotland, the factory would be economically viable. Given these circumstances, the corporation pressed, and the Government of the day encouraged, Scottish farmers to increase their acreage of beet production to that economically viable level. They pressed and pushed and encouraged Scottish farmers, who increased the acreage under production steadily until it reached the 13,500 acres at which it stands today. Then, suddenly, in 1969 the British Sugar Corporation turned round and said that even with this acreage, it was now not profitable and that, looking ahead, sugar beet was not a viable economic industry to maintain in Scotland. As a result, the British Sugar Corporation announced the closure of the factory in 1971.
I, along with many other Members of Parliament, took up this matter with the then Labour Government and asked them why it was not a viable industry and demanded an independent survey apart from the B.S.C. survey of the viability of the corporation's factory. I was prepared at the time to accept the argument that if it was not economically viable it should not be continued. But we were given no


chance of an independent survey and no chance to attempt to see whether the corporation was efficient and whether it was doing the job properly. We were told that £2 million was needed to modernise the Cupar factory if it was to be made satisfactory.
We were told, accurately at the time, that the Government had to find a transport subvention to allow transport of the sugar beet to the factory and to make production reasonably economical. It was said that no one could suggest that this area of Scotland could compete with the more fertile plains of Lincolnshire and that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to close down the factory. I was very unhappy about this, and I am particularly unhappy when a monopoly refuses to allow any independent survey of its figures and makes a claim of that kind. Nevertheless, under the last Government, I said that if that was the situation we must accept it. Very reluctantly I accepted the position and urged it upon the farmers in my constituency.
Tonight, when we are discussing the future of the Scottish farming industry and jobs in Scotland, I do not think we want to indulge in too many petty party polemics and make quotations from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are now members of the Government, who are now junior Ministers and Whips and Government back benchers. I will not quote the things they said at that time attacking the Labour Government and saying that this closure was unsatisfactory, that it was disastrous and that it was a total depredation of Scottish interests. I shall not bother the House with all that. I simply want to stick to the issue as it stands today and the total change in the situation which has occurred since 1969.
What has happened since 1969 puts a totally new complexion on the situation. First, into the picture there came a consortium of Scottish farmers who said that if the British Sugar Corporation was not capable of running the factory at a profit they—the farmers—would like to look into the situation. The Scottish farmers and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland went into this in great detail.
First, they investigated the profit and loss of a factory in France with an exactly equivalent tonnage. They went into

this in great detail and found that a French factory with exactly the same tonnage of beet sugar available was running at a profit. They then looked around and produced a consortium of Scottish interests—retailing, banking and farming interests—which said it would look into the matter. A survey of the situation in Scotland was commissioned and was carried out by sugar refining experts who came to the conclusion that unlike the British Sugar Corporation, the consortium could make the Cupar factory pay at the rate of between £130,000 and £150,000 a year.
The consortium said that it was prepared to take over the sugar factory and to buy it at a reasonable price agreed by an independent valuer. Moreover, the consortium was prepared to pay the transport subsidy to the farmers. It was asking nothing from the Government. On this basis the consortium was prepared to take over and run the B.S.C. factory in Cupar and allow the acreage of beet-farming in Scotland to continue. This was a totally new situation which should have led the Government to reconsider the whole position and recalculate their attitude.
I have heard it said by certain people that the consortium was not wholly genuine and that some people behind it had ulterior motives for getting into the sugar beet refining industry. This is not true. These suspicions were not founded. I cannot on the Floor of the House reveal the precise names and amounts of money that have been put up by this consortium but it is entirely a group of reliable people, connected with Scottish farming, Scottish banking and Scottish retailing. There can be no possible suggestion that they are unreliable people who do not know what they are about. They are people who have thought about this matter with the greatest care, because if they fail the financial liability is on their own heads. If they cannot produce the goods at the end of the day, only they will lose. I hope that no one on the benches opposite will try to cast any aspersions on the genuine intention of the consortium when it set about this activity.
Let us look at the position when the consortium offered to take over the factory, to run it at a profit and to maintain sugar beet-growing in Scotland. What


has been the attitude and response of the Conservative Government to this offer by private enterprise to run something which was otherwise a Government monopoly and to maintain sugar beet-growing in Scotland? This is the cardinal factor.
The Government have not welcomed it. They have not said, "Splendid, this is what we want. Let us help. Let us draw these people into discussions and bring them together. "The Government have stonewalled. They have pleaded difficulty after difficulty. I have been told again and again that the Government did not go to see the various interests involved or speak to them. Why did they not do so? Why did they not say, "This is a chance to keep this industry in Scotland"? Why did they not help these people and push them along? The Government have done nothing but create difficulty after difficulty all along the line.
Let me deal with the three major difficulties. The first is the question of acreage. On this I am glad to say that the Government came clean very quickly. On two occasions, on 19th October and 16th November when answering Questions, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture both stated that the acreage of Scottish beet-growing was not an issue. They said, "This is quite clear. You can have the 14,000 to 16,000 acres you want for growing beet in Scotland." So we can put the problem of acreage aside.
The second difficulty is this. Having grown the beet on those 14,000 to 16,000 acres and produced, it was expected, 22,000 tons of white sugar from the beet, will the Scottish farmers and the consortium be entitled to the overall price accepted by the British Sugar Corporation for their production?
This matter depended on an elaborate question of the negotiated total tonnage for Britain as a candidate applicant for the European Economic Community. It was agreed that we should produce in this country 900,000 tons of refined white sugar, and that has been the position settled by the Government's negotiators in Brussels.
Up to a certain time there was no problem about the Scottish industry because the existing acreage in England, which is

roughly 443,000 acres, produced on average over the years 1965 to 1970 between 850,000 and 870,000 tons of sugar, or between 30,000 and 50,000 tons short of the total that Britain is allowed to produce under the agreement we have made with the Community. There was, therefore, no intrinsic problem in the Scottish 14,000 to 16,000 acres producing an extra 22,000 tons within this quota.
Difficulty has arisen in the past year because 1970 and 1971 have produced bumper crops. In 1971 in particular the crop was so good that the total passed the 900,000 ton limit. The question therefore arose: if Scotland's 16,000 acres contributed to total United Kingdom production beyond the 900,000 ton limit, would this mean that this sugar would not be covered by the overall price guarantee? In other words, would it have to be sold on the open market, some of it at raw sugar prices? If so, the operation in Scotland might no longer be economically viable because the Scottish consortium assumed that the total tonnage that it produced would be sold at the price for refined white sugar.
The real question, however, is that with 900,000 tons to be produced in the United Kingdom as a whole, surely the Government could have given 22,000 tons to Scotland. If the Government really believe in regional policy and in a reasonable share-out, they did not have to negotiate an extra quota for Scotland. They could simply have said, "Scotland will be entitled to 22,000 tons out of the 900,000 tons for the United Kingdom as a whole."
Consider the figures. We are simply asking that out of 443,000 acres we in Scotland should have 16,000, and that out of production of 900,000 tons we should be allowed to produce 22,000 tons. Is this too much to ask?
I have no doubt that the Minister will say, "The contract for beet-growing have been given out in England. We cannot go back on them." But what about the Scottish farmers who were encouraged to put more land into sugar beet production, to buy machinery and to increase output? Are they to be sold down the river at the expense of the English producers? This is the key point.
The third difficulty is the question of the price of the Cupar sugar beet factory.


If the Government were helpful and said that the acreage for Scotland would be allowed and that they would accept the production of 22,000 tons of refined sugar, this question would remain: are the Government prepared to allow the British Sugar Corporation factory to be taken over by the consortium at a reasonable price? This is the 64,000-dollar question, because the corporation has put a price of £700,000 on this factory.
This matter of the price cannot be argued both ways. In the first place the B.S.C. said that the factory was derelict and needed £2 million spent on it to put it on a reasonable footing. In the second place the corporation turns round and says that it is worth £700,000. That is absolute nonsense. How can a factory be worth that much when, if it is not sold, it will have to be knocked cown? In that event the only money that would be returned would be from the machinery, which would have to be dismantled and sold south of the Border, and hon. Members can imagine how much it would fetch.
It has been estimated that between £150,000 and £200,000 would be a reasonable price for the factory, and that is what the consortium is prepared to pay. Indeed, the consortium is prepared to pay whatever sum is suggested as a result of an independent valuation.
On this critical point what do the Government, who are supposed to be interested in Scottish farming and regional development, say? The Under-Secretary said recently that they believed in firms taking their own decisions. He said:
What the consortium have asked us to do is to intervene between two commercial firms and persuade one to sell at the price the other is prepared to pay. The Government cannot interfere in this way.
Those are the words of the Under-Secretary.
Let us be clear about this. In a monopoly where the Government own 36 per cent. and where they appoint the chairman and two of the directors, they are not prepared to intervene. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not slow to tell the nationalised industries what levels of wage settlements they must aim at. They are not slow to tell the nationalised industries to invest more.

Yet they will not give guidance to a firm in which they own 36 per cent. As shareholders, will not they safeguard public money by trying to get something back for the machinery which otherwise will become derelict? They could get £200,000 from the consortium but, apparently, they prefer to allow it to become derelict rather than dent the B.S.C.'s monopoly.
The present Government are supposed to stand for private enterprise but they say "No" to private enterprise in this industry. They are supposed to be in favour of regional development but in this case they are cutting down on regional economic activity. They are supposed to be the farmer's best friend. In this case, however, they are booting him in the backside.
The Government are turning their backs on all their promises to the farmers. What could they do now? I do not want to be harsh on the Under-Secreary. My guess is that he wanted to save the sugar beet industry. I suspect that the proposal to do so went up to the Cabinet and that the Secretary of State, the greatest loser in the business that Scottish politicians have ever known, lost in the Cabinet. As a result, the Under-Secretary now has to carry the can for him, and I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. He has to explain why this indefensible position must be maintained.
What could the hon. Gentleman do to dig himself out of this hole? I am not gunning for the consortium to be allowed to carry on. I am gunning for the continuation of this crop in Scotland. All that the hon. Gentleman has to do is to say to the British Sugar Corporation, "You can go on for another two years." At the end of 1974, the sugar position will be wide open. The 335,000 tons provided by Australia will be open to British producers to provide. There will be a great opening for Scottish production after 1974. We want to keep production in Scotland going until then. All that the hon. Gentleman has to do is tell the corporation that it must go on for two years. That is a minor issue compared with the directives which have been issued to public corporations on other matters. He could even ask B.S.C. to lease the factory to the consortium for two years, telling the consortium that it is its own business if it goes bust. He


could say to the consortium, "Make money out of it if you can."
Tonight, Scottish farmers are looking to the Government—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Hurry up and sit down.

Mr. Mackintosh: If the Government are not prepared to act now, Scottish farmers are in great danger. At the moment they have vacant fields. Within a week or two they have to decide what crops to plant. If the Government are not prepared to help in this matter, they will not be readily forgiven by Scottish farmers.

10.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on raising this matter, though I must say that if he had wanted some of his points answered he could have left me a little more time than about nine minutes in which to do so.
There has been no question of the Government stonewalling on this matter. We are equally concerned, and we believe that our policies on agriculture in Scotland show that we are far more concerned than the hon. Member's Government were when they were in power. If I may, I shall go through the record and try to correct some of the false impressions that the hon. Gentleman has left with the House. I hope that by doing so I shall help hon. Members to understand what has taken place.
Before coming to that, I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who has been extremely active at all stages of the matter over a number of years in trying to preserve this industry for his constituency. I also commend to hon. Members the active interest of other hon. Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) have been especially active over this matter in recent weeks.
I must come back to the fact, which the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian recognised, that the original decision to close the factory was taken by

the British Sugar Corporation in July, 1969, with the agreement of the then Labour Government. At that time we undertook to take a fresh look at the decision and to review it. After very full discussions we reluctantly had to conclude that there were not sufficient grounds for reconsidering it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of factors which influenced the British Sugar Corporation's original decision. It is right to remind the House of them to keep the record clear. First, the corporation was suffering losses at the factory at the rate of £180,000 a year. Secondly, to bring the factory up-to-date with modern equipment and make it viable for a longer period, the corporation reckoned that it would need an investment of £1.7 million, or £2 million at today's values. Thirdly, it pointed out that the average yield per acre in Scotland was about 20 to 25 per cent. lower than in England. Finally—we must remember that sugar is a sunshine crop—the sugar content of the beet in Scotland is lower than that further south. That was the position at the end of last year.
In December last year the proposal came forward for the operation of a sugar beet processing factory at Cupar independent of the British Sugar Corporation, and the Farmers Supply Association of Scotland, Ltd., expressed a wish to undertake a feasibility study.
The conclusion of that study was basically twofold: first, under certain conditions operations at Cupar could be viable; and second—a point which the House must not overlook—the British Sugar Corporation was right to contend that under its commercial requirements, the Cupar factory was not a viable proposition. It is important to remember this point, which came out of the consultants' report.
The study was presented to the Government at the end of June. Although at that time we recognised that there were certain technical hurdles, we believed that there was sufficient optimism to justify asking the British Sugar Corporation to discuss the project with the sponsoring group which has become known as the consortium.
I met representatives of the consortium on 4th August. At that meeting I undertook to facilitate discussions with


the corporation. On 11th October, nearly two months later, I was told by the consortium that the project required three conditions: first, an adequate allocation of acreage; second, that the Cupar factory should be allowed to produce and market 22,000 tons of white sugar; and third, that the price of the factory should be in line with the figure in the feasibility study.
I should make clear at this stage where we stand on the issue. There is no question of stonewalling or of trying to hide behind anything. The position is absolutely clear.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I will not give way.
On 4th August we indicated to the consortium that acreage was not a serious problem. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirmed this in the House on 19th October. At the meeting on 4th August I also made it plain to the consortium that concerning the production of white and raw sugar, it could not expect to operate on a more favourable basis than the British Sugar Corporation.
On 1st November we again met the consortium and the Scottish National Farmers' Union. At that time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that viability depended on the price of the factory and the plant. As was said earlier, we believed that this was essentially a transaction between two commercial organisations and that it would not be right for the Government to intervene.
I should like to make the Government's legal position quite clear. The corporation is a publicly-quoted company, with 65 per cent. of its shares in private hands. Apart from our belief that it is wrong to intervene in a commercial matter such as the sale of a factory, it is not possible for us to do so. We have no power to appoint an arbiter; no power to direct the corporation to undertake a particular commercial operation; no power to direct it on how it should dispose of its assets; no power to pay out of public money the differences in commercial valuations. Where we have

power, or even a reasonable discretion, to act, we have at all stages declared our willingness to do so.
I come to the main points of difficulty, beginning with acreage. We made it quite clear as long ago as last August that the Government were prepared to use their powers under the Sugar Act to ensure that acreage was made available in Scotland without reducing that available in the South to the Corporation.
On the questions of the balance between white and raw sugar and the restrictions of total domestic output of white sugar from beet, I have two points on what the hon. Gentleman has said. First, the agreement on how it is split up is an agreement between the refiners, to which the Government are not a party, and the relevant international agreement is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Second, about one-third of the raw sugar produced from beet is refined by the cane refiners.
To be viable, the consortium has told me that it would have to produce a higher proportion of white compared with raw sugar than the corporation does now. In effect, it has asked for a guaranteed output. In other words, it expects to operate in more favourable circumstances than the corporation or the other refiners. We have said that we can allocate acreage to Cupar, but what we cannot do is to create unrealistic conditions to favour the consortium. I made that clear in August.
There has been controversy on the question of the access to the factory. We indicated last August a willingness to facilitate the negotiations with the B.S.C. This was again emphasised on 1st November, and within the past week I have asked the chairman of the consortium whether he wanted action on my part to help, but I was told that it was not needed at this stage.
I hope that in the short time tonight I have managed at least to set the record straight and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.